asked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it be true, as stated in the "Standard" newspaper of the 17th instant, that another expedition of Her Majesty's ships has been sent against the Solomon Islands to inflict forcible retribution on the natives?

Sir, Commander Bruce went in the Cormorant to Gaieta Bay to the village of the tribe which had murdered Lieutenant Bower and his boat's crew. There Bishop Selwyn was waiting, having persuaded Kalikona, the Chief of the tribe, to surrender the actual murderers, among whom was the Chief's own son. The ringleader of the massacre was delivered up first, and executed. Then the Bishop came on board, bringing with him the Chief and his son, and bringing, likewise, the watch and compass of Lieutenant Bower and the weapons of his crew, as well as the skull of the poor officer, which had been kept as a trophy. The son, who was only 16 years of age, was spared, but has been retained as a hostage for the surrender of the rest of the murderers, one of whom, the man who actually shot Lieutenant Bower in the tree, as I have learnt from a private letter of the Bishop's, has since been captured. Commander Bruce in his official Report writes—

"I have the honour to bring most prominently before your notice the assistance I received from Bishop Selwyn, without whose great influence over the Natives, energy and courage in landing unarmed on Kalikona's beach, when that Chief was surrounded by armed followers, whom no force could have brought from his lair in the bush, and without whose assistance it would have been, I believe, impossible to have achieved the result, and certainly without great destruction of life and property."

The people of that region have been impressed by the judicial character of the proceeding, as compared with all that has gone before it. "Certainly," the Bishop writes in a hasty and familiar letter, which I shall, however, take the liberty to quote—

"If all these men are surrendered without the Cormorant landing a man, or firing a shot in anger, it will be very much better than the usual indiscriminate Hazing, and the moral effect will be very great—is very great, in fact. The people all say they will never cut another ship out again."

I believe this to have been the first instance in which one of these cases has been dealt with in a manner that can give any hope for the diminution of violence and outrage in the future; and I think that much credit is due to Commander Bruce, and nothing short of gratitude to Bishop Selwyn.

asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he has any objection to lay upon the Table the further correspondence, since the date of the last Return (August 1st, 1880), which has taken place between the Commissioners of Irish Lights, the Proprietor of Meen Island, the Trinity House, Mr. John R. Wigham, the Board of Trade, and Professor Tyndal, respecting the improvements of the light on, and the establishment of a fog signal at, Copeland or Meen Island, and the adoption of gas instead of oil as a means of illuminating that station; and, whether, seeing that the Board of Trade had written to the Commissioners of Irish Lights sanctioning the establishment of a gas light and fog signal on the Copeland Island, the Government have taken any steps to proceed with the erection of these works?

, in reply, said, if the hon. Member would move for the Correspondence he would be glad to give it as an unopposed Return. As to the second part of the Question, there appeared to be some misapprehension. The Government had nothing whatever to do with the erection of those works, which were entirely in the hands of the Commissioners of Irish Lights. It had been determined that the light on Meen Island should be transferred to Copeland, and he was informed that the work to carry out that transfer would probably be commenced in December.

asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is intended to fill up the vacant office of Royal Historiographer for Scotland; if so, on what grounds; and, whether any and what duties attach to the office, and with whom the appointment rests?

Sir, the office to which the hon. Member refers is my appointment; the matter is still under consideration.

Will any announcement on the subject be made before the close of the Session?

I do not think there will be.

asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is correct, as stated in the leading article in the "Times" of 22nd August, "That Mr. Lewisohn has applied through the Foreign Office for permission to return to Russia, and this also has been refused him;" and, whether, in the event of Mr. Lewisohn having already started for Russia, duly provided with a Foreign Office passport properly viséd by the Russian authorities here, relying upon the protection guaranteed by International Law to every British subject travelling abroad who is in possession of such document, Her Majesty's Government will give immediate telegraphic instructions to Her Majesty's Ambassador or Chargé d'Affaires at St. Petersburg to the effect that protection and asylum shall be given to Mr. Lowisohn in the event of the Russian authorities again illegally taking steps for his expulsion, as was the case in September last?

Sir, Mr. Lewisohn has informed the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that he proposes to visit Russia again, but before doing so he desires to know whether Her Majesty's Government will afford him protection against the risk of expulsion of the ground of his religion. The question whether Mr. Lewisohn's expulsion on the occasion of his last visit to Russia was or was not warranted by the laws and the Treaty obligations of that country is still the subject of Correspondence between the two Governments, and pending the result of the friendly communications which are taking place on the subject I can make no further statement.

asked whether, if Mr. Lewisohn visited St. Petersburg, Her Majesty's Government would instruct Her Majesty's Ambassador or Chargé d'Affaires there to grant him an asylum, if it were necessary?

Sir, I do not think it desirable that anything of that kind should be done while friendly communications are going on between the two Governments on this subject.

asked whether any British subject who might be expelled, from St. Petersburg contrary to Treaty agreements would not have the right of asylum generally granted under those circumstances at Her Majesty's Embassy, or whether this was an exceptional case?

I would rather leave that Question to be answered by the Attorney General.

begged to ask the Attorney General. Probably the hon. and learned Gentleman could answer the Question off-hand; or, if it was preferred, he would give Notice of the Question.

If you please.

asked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can give any information as to the following prisoners in the Gaol at Free Town, Sierra Leone:—W. T. G. Caulker, imprisoned October 1878; Monodoo Vangang, imprisoned May 4th 1876; Doombuya, imprisoned December 1879; Beah Yeck, Sharka Bolontan, and Mustapha, imprisoned March 1880; what are the charges against them respectively; whether they are detained under any warrant or other legal process; why are they not tried; whether they are treated like convicts, though untried; whether he can give any information of the charge against Thomas C. Williams, another prisoner in the same Gaol of Free Town, Sierra Leone, who memorialised the Colonial Office in April 1879; whether the prisoner has for four years, night and day, been shackled with irons, consisting of a band round the waist, and chains to the wrists and ankles; whether an order for the removal of them was sent by or at the instigation of the Secretary of State in April 1880, and only for a time or in part obeyed; whether the man has been worse treated and flogged with forty lashes since; whether, at the same prison, Nathaniel Williams, on 14th October last, was forced on the treadmill while in irons, and, in consequence suffered compound fracture of the arm; and, whether he will inquire as to the present fate of all these men with a view to their release, and to order an investigation into the state of the gaol and the frequent flogging alleged to take place there?

Sir, we have no information as to three of the prisoners—namely, Monodoo Vangang, Doombuya, and Beah Yeck; but we will at once make inquiries about them. We did inquire about Caulker, Sharka Bolontan, and Mustapha, some months since. The dates of their imprisonment appear to be correctly given. They were, in fact, exposed to the vengeance of neighbouring Chiefs, and were taken over as prisoners partly for their own protection, partly to prevent outbreaks of war. Caulker has been released, but upon condition that he do not leave the Colony. Attempts are now being made to settle the feuds in which the others were involved, and their release may be shortly expected. They have not been tried, and indeed it must be said that they are State prisoners, detained without any clear warrant of law. They have been treated as untried prisoners, although Caulker seems to have been subjected to punishment more than once in consequence of attempts to escape. We have no information about Nathaniel Williams; but with respect to him an inquiry will be immediately made. As to Thomas Williams, a despatch had been prepared before Notice was given of the hon. Member's Question, and it went by last Friday's mail. I am afraid the first Questions relating to him accurately state the facts. We have no official information as to the last; but it was a statement to that effect which caused the despatch to be written which I have already mentioned. I trust that the investigation which has been ordered will remedy, if it does not remove altogether, the state of affairs, which is a scandal to our administration.

asked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is intended to proceed with the series of pictures by Sir. Herbert, R.A., for the decoration of the Peers Robing Room, as settled by the Fine Arts Commission for the Decoration of the Houses of Parliament; and, whether the two pictures already completed have given satisfaction, and what progress the artist has made with the two remaining pictures?

Sir, it was originally intended that there should be four pictures painted for the Peers' Robing Room. When, however, the second picture was ordered from Mr. Herbert, it was expressly stipulated that the Government was to be under no further obligation to give him a commission for a third or fourth picture, and no further order has been given. The picture of "Mosos," already placed in the Peers' Robing Room, has given, I need hardly say, general satisfaction; the second picture is not yet placed there, and I think it would be premature in me to express any opinion about it.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether Science Schools are held at the Hall of Science, Old Street, E.C., in connection with the Science and Art Department of South Kensington; and, whether the courses for the instruction of the young during the next Winter Session, from October 1881 to May 1882, include elementary or advanced courses in physiology, chemistry, biology, natural philosophy, and geology, as well as sound, light, and heat, by Mr. E. B. Aveling, Miss Hypatia Bradlaugh, Miss Alice Bradlaugh, and Mrs. Besant?

Sir, I find, on inquiry at South Kensington, that Dr. Aveling has conducted evening science classes at the Hall of Science since September, 1879. The subjects taught are mathematics, inorganic chemistry, elementary botany, and animal physiology. I understand that Miss H. Bradlaugh and Mrs. Besant have occasionally assisted Dr. Aveling; but they are not teachers recognized by the Department, and what they have done must have been a voluntary sacrifice of time and labour on their part. Captain Abney, who examined the classes this spring, reported very favourably of the instruc- tion given, which is confined mainly to adults of the superior artizan class. We know nothing of the proposed subjects for next session, as no forms of application have been received at South Kensington.

asked the right hon. Gentleman, whether it was correct that Dr. Aveling had recently written that the principles involved in the construction of the frog were "condemnatory of God," and whether he considered that anyone publishing such ideas was a fit teacher for a school in connection with the Science and Art Department, and whether such teaching received the sanction of Her Majesty's Government?

said, that he was unable to answer the details of the Question without Notice. These classes had been thoroughly well conducted, and the instruction had been good. This was all they had to do with the matter at South Kensington, and certainly he had heard nothing to justify the withdrawal of the grant.

said, that he should renew the Question on the following day, and hoped that in the meantime the right hon. Gentleman would inform himself on the subject.

asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, before any important changes are introduced in connection with the system of warehousing and delivering goods liable to duty, the Government will undertake to give the merchants interested an opportunity of considering how far the proposed changes would be likely to affect their convenience in the conduct of their business?

Sir, the object of the Government in the changes referred to has been to assimilate the system of warehousing goods by the Customs and Inland Revenue Departments. For this purpose a Treasury Committee was appointed, consisting of representatives from each of the two Departments, with myself as chairman. The question was very carefully considered, and the proposed changes, it is expected, will faciltate merchants in the conduct of their business. If, however, any practical difficulties are subsequently found in their working, steps will be taken to remedy such difficulties.

asked the President of the Board of Works, When the Return ordered by this House with respect to the publication of the enlarged Ordnance Maps will be printed?

, in reply, said, that the Return in question was laid on the Table on Friday last, accompanied with a map. He presumed that it would take some little time to print it with the map. No doubt, the Return would be circulated as soon as the map could be printed.

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he could give a Return showing the number of clubs in the United Kingdom, when they were established, the number of members in each, and the subscription, annual or otherwise, distinguishing those which are working men's and proprietary clubs, and those which are registered under the Friendly Societies Act, and giving the annual sale therein of all exciseable liquors during the last three years, or for a less period if not established so long?

Sir, I am afraid that I cannot promise the hon. and learned Member that I can give him this Return. I do not know that I have any means of getting it. Objections are often taken to the inquisitorial nature of the action of the police; and if they were to pry into every club in the Kingdom in order to ascertain what was the annual sale there of all exciseable liquors during the last three years I think there would be just cause of complaint. I do not know, if the hon. and learned Member wants an inquiry to be made into the sale of all exciseable liquors in the clubs to which he himself belongs, whether that would be quite agreeable to those clubs.

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the county of Lancashire is very serious; if he will state the number of cases that have occurred in that county during the present month; and, if he will state whether outbreaks of the disease have also taken place in other counties?

, in reply, said, that the hon. and gallant Member had put a Question to him on this subject a few days ago, and he had then stated, in answer to it, that there had been only one outbreak in Lancashire reported to him that day, and that he did not think it was of so alarming a character as the hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to suppose. He had the statistics for the whole of the year, and they bore out the statement which he then made. The number of outbreaks in Lancashire of foot-and-mouth disease during the present month was 35. In May last there were 64. The fact was that the number of outbreaks during the last three months had only been 10 in excess of the number in the month of May. The number of outbreaks in other counties this month was as follows:—In Cambridgeshire, 17; in Derbyshire, 63; in Leicestershire, 57; in Norfolk, 45; in Northamptonshire, 128; in Staffordshire, 30; and in Yorkshire, 35. The number in Lancashire, as he had said, was 35; so that Lancashire was almost at the bottom of the list, having regard to its size, as compared with other counties. In the first week of this year there were 256 outbreaks throughout England and Wales, while last week the number was 145. They had brought the number down on the 1st of April to as low as 20 for the week; but immediately the markets were opened the number of outbreaks began to increase, and they went up from 20 to 26, 55, 73, 94, 105, until they reached 149 last week, showing that the real danger was in throwing open the markets and in the movement of diseased cattle. But, at the same time, his hon. Friend would perceive that there was no real ground for alarm with regard to Lancashire in particular, which was very much better than the Midland Counties. The whole of the disease throughout the country was about one-half what it was in the month of January of this year.

asked the right hon. Gentleman if he could inform the House how many cattle were affected, inasmuch as the statement of an outbreak did not convey a distinct idea; it might be a very small or a very large outbreak?

could not say; but on the average the numbers ran very much the same in the different outbreaks. He had not the exact number of cattle affected, but he would endeavour to get it. It would appear in the Return later on.

asked whether the disease extended to Scotland.?

replied, that he was very glad to say that Scotland was entirely free from the disease, and Ireland too. The precautions taken during the autumn with regard to the importation of cattle had prevented any outbreak in those countries.

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the Department had any intention of closing the fairs and markets during the autumn?

said, that depended very much on circumstances. The great opponents of the closing of the markets were the farmers themselves. [Mr. J. HOWARD: No!] Well, that had been his experience. The pressure that was put on the Department in April of this year by Members on all sides of the House to open the markets was such as obliged them to leave them open, very much to their regret, as he believed if they had remained closed for another month they should have entirely stamped out the foot-and-mouth disease. When the time came that they could with the least possible inconvenience close the markets they would be happy to do so. He was glad to hear from his hon. Friend that there was no opposition on the part of the farmers as to the closing of the markets.

said, that perhaps he might be allowed to suggest that when the right hon. Gentleman received opposition at the closing of markets he would ascertain whether the opponents were bonâ fide farmers or were dealers. He thought he would find that in the majority of cases they were dealers.

said, they had always done so.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he has now learnt the circumstances at- tending the loss of life by drowning at Scarborough on Thursday last; and, if he can state whether it is the practice or not of the local authorities of inland and seaside watering-places to provide watchmen, boats, or life-saving apparatus for the safety of bathers during the bathing season?

Sir, what I have learnt in reference to this accident is that the two unfortunate men who lost their lives were bathing early, at 7 A.M., in a rocky spot not used for bathing, and in contravention of the local bye-laws, under which they rendered themselves liable to a penalty for their act. I am unable to say how far it is or is not the practice of local authorities at inland or seaside watering-places to provide such appliances as those referred to in the Question; but, although no complaints of neglect of precautions have reached me, the law in relation to this subject is such as I stated the other day. As regards the town, however, where the lamentable accident in question occurred, I am informed that a boat is kept in readiness during the bathing hours; that a watchman, who is an experienced swimmer, superintends the boats and bathing-machines; and that a house of recovery is provided for persons who may have suffered from immersion. Moreover, the proprietors of bathing-machines are, under the bye-laws, required to keep life-buoys, cork-jackets, and lines ready for use, and I am assured that these regulations are stringently enforced.

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman had received any information about the child drowned in two feet of water in Kensington Gardens in the presence of 50 people, and whether there was any provision for life-saving apparatus?

replied, that he had no information on the subject.

asked the Postmaster General, Whether the Inspector of Irish Mails has dismissed several Post Office mail guards, who, on being injured in railway accidents, have applied for compensation to the Railway Company; whether J. Coyne, who was injured on 28th October last, was not, after applying for compensation, allowed to resume duty, while his colleague, J. Callanan, who did not seek compensation, was reinstated; whether J. Cunningham, who received a dislocation of the thumb on 10th May, and accepted fifty pounds from the Railway Company, was dismissed by the Mail Inspector when he heard of it, although Cunningham was not a day off duty; and, whether the Mail Inspector has any interest or shares in any Irish Railway?

, in reply, said, the Inspector of Irish mails in Ireland had no power whatever to dismiss any person from employment. All he could do was to recommend or arrange for a transfer from one point to another. J. Coyne and J. Callanan both participated in the same railway accident on the 28th October last, but Callanan said that he was not hurt at all, and Coyne gave a very contradictory account of the accident. He was not dismissed. All that took place was this. Some time before he had been promised promotion on the distinct condition that he should give up his position in the travelling Post Office. He accepted promotion on that condition, and was promoted accordingly. With regard to another man named J. Cunningham, he (the Postmaster General) had not had time to investigate the case; but he would take care to make inquiries, and write to the hon. Member giving him the result. It seemed somewhat strange that a man who received £50 compensation for injuries should not have been one single day off work. He thought it would be incompetent of him to inquire whether the Mail Inspector in question held any shares in any Irish Railway unless some evidence was forthcoming, and he did not think there was any forthcoming, to show any partiality on his part whatever as regarded this case.

asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, considering the prolonged, depression and gloomy prospects of the farming interest in England and Scotland, it is the intention of the Government to introduce remedial measures early next Session, or, whether the consideration of such measures is to be postponed until the Royal Commission shall have made its Report?

said, he wished to ask at the same time, Whether, having regard to the very long period of time during which the Duke of Richmond's Commission had now been sitting, and the great cost of the inquiry, amounting to about £15,000 a-year, and the desirability of legislation on this subject, the Government would not press the Commissioners to make their Report before the commencement of the next Session of Parliament.

I have no doubt, Sir, that with respect to the question of expense it is very desirable indeed that the proceedings of the Commission should be expedited, but I do not imagine at the close of the Session it would be possible to operate in that direction; but after a moderate vacation probably the Commissioners will continue their work. Undoubtedly, it is most desirable that, without doing injustice to the important subject, they should bring the matter to a conclusion. We have no direct power for that purpose; but I hope to make inquiry, and to receive some intimation that will be satisfactory. We cannot but believe that the Commissioners are under the operation of exactly the same motives and considerations as I am, and as my hon. Friends are. With respect to the immediate question before us, the bringing forward of legislative measures touching the land, an important element undoubtedly in that case is the question of the Report of the Royal Commission. As to the uncertainty as to the time that the Report may be received, it is very difficult for me to give any positive answer. I have already stated, in general terms, the strong impressions of the Government as to the necessity of measures with respect to the laws affecting the land. But this is not the time when it is possible to consider the order of proceedings for the next Session of Parliament. We are now almost six months away from the probable time of the meeting of Parliament, and we cannot announce any trustworthy conclusions.

asked whether he understood the right hon. Gentleman as admitting that there was prolonged depression in the farming interests, and that legislation would follow as a consequence?

I do not pledge myself on that subject. If I am asked my opinion as to the depression in agriculture, I believe I am only expressing the universal conviction when I say it is a patent and notorious fact which we all deeply regret.

asked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been directed to the number of Purchase Captains who have been, owing to the promotions of 1st July, superseded by many other Captains junior in service; and, if, in order to nullify the consequent hardship, he will grant those Purchase Officers from the 1st July last the rank of Supernumerary Major without additional pay till they become absorbed in their regular turn?

Sir, in reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to point out to him that, under the regimental system, officers are constantly superseded in Army rank by officers of other regiments junior to them; and so far as purchase captains are concerned, this was not in the smallest degree affected by the late Warrant. Speaking generally, three captains in every battalion became majors—that is to say, three steps were given at once, instead of being spread over a considerable period. The Warrant, therefore, gave great advantages to purchase captains, and I am not prepared to do more for them. The particular proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman would merely give a boon to one set of officers to the prejudice of their juniors?

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are only 45 of these captains?

There may be only 45 of these captains, but the precedent would apply to hundreds.

said, he desired to ask a Question with regard to the following Notice of Motion, which stood on the Paper in the name of the Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett). The Motion was as follows:—

"On Second Reading of Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, to move, That the policy pursued by Her Majesty's present Government with regard to the Foreign and Imperial relations of Great Britain has tended to the dishonour and disintegration of the Empire, and has isolated England in Europe."

Now, on the 11th of August, 1876, Mr. E. Jenkins made some observations upon the conduct of the then Government, which seemed to be of a similar nature to that pointed at in the Motion of the hon. Member on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill. He said that he desired to take that opportunity of making some general observations upon the conduct of the Government and the right hon. Gentleman at the head of it. Mr. Jenkins then proceeded a little way, when he was stopped by the Speaker, who stated that Motions on the Appropriation Bill must be relevant to the clauses of that Bill. The Question he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) wished to ask was whether the hon. Member for Eye would be in Order in making general observations on the whole field of foreign policy of the Government, or would he be bound to confine himself to a Question relating to the Bill?

As the House is aware, Amendments on the different stages of the Appropriation Bill are governed by the same rule as is applicable to other Bills. They must be relevant to the Bill, or some part of it, instead of having the same latitude as is given on Motions for going into Supply. On looking at the Amendment of the hon. Member for Eye, I find that the terms of it are of a most general nature, and, undoubtedly, on the face of it, it does not apply to any clause in the Appropriation Bill. At the same time, if the hon. Member shows that his Amendment does affect the question of Supply to be granted to the Crown for the Public Service, he could put himself in Order. But as the Amendment stands, so far as I can judge, it has no relevance to the Appropriation Bill before the House.

said, that last night he slightly altered the wording of the Motion, and it was then accepted by the Clerk at the Table. He had been previously informed by a high authority that he could bring forward the Motion on the Appropriation Bill as well as on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply. He put the ques- tion again last night, and was again informed that it was so. He wished to know whether, if he raised the question on Supply, by showing that the Government policy had not been such as to warrant the House in granting the Appropriation Bill, he should be in Order?

I am not prepared to say until I hear how the hon. Member proposes to deal with the subject.

said, he proposed to move the introduction of the following new clause on behalf of the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley):—

(Appointment of two additional Members on Committee.)

"And whereas by 'The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge Act, 1877,' section forty-four, a Universities Committee of the Privy Council is established consisting of the persons in that section named or referred to: Be it Enacted, That Her Majesty may from time to time appoint such other persons not exceeding two in number, as She may think fit, to be Members of the said Committee along with the person in that section mentioned or referred to, and that all the provisions of that Act relating to the said Universities Committee shall be read and have effect as if the power to appoint such additional Members herein contained had been contained in that Act."

He and his hon. Friend thought it necessary to strengthen the Universities Committee. Under the Act of 1877, the Commissioners were to frame statutes to be submitted to the Privy Council; and, if any such statute was objected to, the objector could go before the Universities Committee to state his case; and the Committee had the power to either disallow the statute or remit it to the Commissioners with a declaration. But, as the term of office of the Commissioners was about to expire, there would be no sufficient provision for the working of any new statute. Under this Bill, the Commissioners would have certain additional powers put upon them; but they would be unable either to make a new statute or to amend any statute. He therefore thought it desirable to strengthen the Committee by the addition of other members; and that the basis upon which the Committee was instituted should be widened. Under the Act of 1870, the functions of the Committee were strictly of a judicial character; but by this Bill their functions would be administrative and of the highest importance. He would further observe that by this Bill the Committee would be the judges in their own case if objections were taken to any proposed statute.

said, he thought that what had just happened was an illustration of the inconvenience of bringing on matters of importance so late in the Session. The whole management of this Bill appeared to him to have changed from day to day. The Amendment was originally put down by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce). That loaded the mine, and then the hon. Member went off to America, and left the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) to light it. That hon. Member remained till last night, and now, his patience exhausted, he had left the task to another hon. Gentleman, who was not present last night, and in consequence had made a speech which would have been more proper on the second reading than on this Amendment. The argument of the hon. Member (Mr. Roundell) was that, the duties of the Committee being increased, it was necessary, therefore, to widen the basis of the Committee; but it by no means followed that by being strengthened by an increase of Members the Committee was rendered more efficient for its duties. He admitted that something might be done in that direction; but something had been done by the Bill as it now stood, which would be more effective than anything proposed by the new clause. By the second clause the Committee were empowered to add as assessors any Members of the University Commission; and later on last night the Committee of the House had empowered the Universities Committee to add to their number; so that, so far as knowledge was concerned, the Bill already provided all that strength which it was necessary for a Committee of the Privy Council to have. He thought the notion of strengthening the Committee by increasing their number could only be held by Gentlemen who had not gone through the Bill, and that it would be extremely hard to find among the ex-Court officials, or Judges on Circuit, or Ambassadors abroad, gentlemen qualified sufficiently to carry out the duties of this Committee, or to add to its strength. He feared that the real motive that actuated the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was a desire for something not very different from a Party triumph. On the Privy Council Committee there were two Conservatives and four Liberals. He must also point out that the whole of the proposal of the Government was not contained in the Bill. The new clause proposed to add two Members to the Committee; but the hon. Member had not reminded the Committee of the fact that the Government proposed to exercise the powers they already possessed of appointing not only two new Members, but three; and of those, two were Members of the Liberal Party. He could not understand how this Amendment had the support of the Government, for the Prime Minster had undertaken that at that time of the Session no controversial matter should be brought before the House. There could not be any matter of a more controversial character than this, and yet the House was asked to deal with it at a time when a debate upon it was almost impossible. He would remind the Government of one consequence that might ensue from their action. The House of Lords had assented to the Bill in its original shape; but this new proposal, combined with the well-understood intention of the Government with regard to the third Commissioner, would make such a change, and one so pronounced, that the House of Lords would be justified in rejecting the Bill—as he thought, to the great inconvenience of both Universities. If that result ensued, the responsibility would not lie with the House of Lords, but with the Government, who, on the 23rd of August, in a House of little more than the quorum of 40, asked that the machinery by which the statutes of the Universities were to be regulated for some years to come should be modified. For these reasons he hoped the Government would re-consider their decision, and give some pledge that if the House accepted this Amendment they would not exercise their power of appointing a third Commissioner—or, if they would not do that, would not support the Amendment. He would suggest that this clause be not read a second time.

The observations of my hon. Friend as to the inconvenience to which the House has been put by the block of Business are perfectly undeniable; but they do not carry the Committee to anything. There is likely to be in the Recess, before the next meeting of Parliament, a considerable amount—there may be a great amount—of most important and onerous business cast on the body whose composition my hon. Friend (Mr. Lyulph Stanley) seeks to extend. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has put that body into too narrow a view by describing it as a body simply for political purposes; and, having apparently accurately informed himself, states that there are four Liberals and two Conservatives on the Committee. I have watched the votes in the House of Lords, but I have not seen any strong demonstration upon this Bill to induce the Committee to believe that the Members of this Committee have acted solely with a view to their Parties, but rather that the Bill has been kept completely out of the limits of Party action. If that be so, there disappears the contention of the hon. Member opposite. We have not looked at this matter simply as one of Liberals and Conservatives; we have looked at it with reference to the question of how far the Members of the Committee are so placed with regard to the addition to their duties, as that they can give the amount of time which may be required for the performance of those duties. It is there that I think the strong case of my hon. Friend lies. The Lord Chancellor, taking his case first, is very much occupied, and he is a man with regard to whom we have not at all the same assurance now as we have had as to the immense amount of work he has been in the habit of doing. And, in the third place, he is a man who, as Chairman of the University, has been a party to many of the statutes that may have to come under consideration for repeal, and he would feel considerable difficulty in sitting on the Committee. Therefore, the Lord Chancellor is really, in some considerable degree, to be viewed as less than a perfectly efficient Member of the Committee. The Archbishop of Canterbury, again, is a man who is exceedingly busily occupied, and could not give any great amount of time to these duties. The Duke of Devonshire is in the same position. He is a man who is known to be devoted to the discharge of very varied and extended duties connected with his great possessions and high standing in society; and he is not a person who can give more than a limited amount of time to the discharge of the duties of this Committee. Those are three of the six individuals who form this body. If three Members are added to the Commission, the number of working Members will only be raised to the number originally contemplated, and there will be an increase of the strength of the Commission. Having regard to the amount of duties which the Commission will have to perform, it is necessary that there should, be some addition to the strength of that body. I have no doubt that, although an addition of three Members be made to this body, it will even then be very difficult to secure an average attendance of more than six Members, and I do not think my hon. Friend will contend that that is too large a number. I hope, therefore, that the clause will be accepted.

said, he was afraid that he could not look upon the question as so plain and easy as his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, with his unparalleled talent for presenting a case to the House, had put it before them. He must go back to the Parliamentary history of this measure. He would not go further back than that. The measure was essentially a Government Bill, and it had passed, unanimously, "another place." It was accepted there on the understanding that it was to be what it was—that it was to be the measure then presented; establishing the tribunal thereby created, and no other tribunal. It was unanimously accepted in "another place" by noble Lords, he would not enter into their politics after the warning they had had; but it was accepted there, and if they analyzed the politics of those who accepted it they would find that people quite as conspicuous on one side of the House as the other had aided in facilitating the passing of the Bill, in order that it might be sent down to the House of Commons on the understanding that it would be submitted and passed in the form in which it then stood. Well, in the House of Commons it appeared destined to the same sort of unobtrusive, happy career as it had had elsewhere; but the ardent spirit of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) induced him to propose an addition of two Members to the Committee. Of course, those who supported the Bill in that House, "and those who had to re-consider it elsewhere," were upon the qui vive. There certainly was a general understanding on the part of those who might make themselves troublesome in that House and troublesome "elsewhere," that the addition of two Members to the Committee, which was the demand of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, and which appeared in the clause placed upon the Paper by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Lyulph Stanley), was a matter quite sufficient to wreck the Bill altogether. Still, this modification was accepted; but now it seemed that even that proposal was a minor matter compared with the difference which it was really proposed to make. By some sort of legerdemain the two Members were rolled out into three. Now, three Members might be better than two, or they might be worse. They were certainly more in number; but whether they were better or worse was another thing. All he had to say was that the proposition was now an entirely different proposition from the one which he had himself readily accepted, and which would, he believed, be approved "elsewhere." The good understanding on which he, for his own part, had hoped and trusted that the Bill might have been passed, and on the faith of which he had been exerting himself to get the Bill accepted, was at an end. Why, he asked, should there have been this obscure dodging and reference to other Acts of Parliament, and this coming down at the fag-end of the Session, to make the proposal the House was now asked to accept? The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets asked them to accept two new Members. He had consented to accept them; but he was not aware that in doing so he was to be caught in a trap and find that he had accepted three. He did not accept three. The proposal might be a good one, or a bad one; but that was not the question. It might be a mistake, or else he himself might be very much in error; but he knew perfectly well what he was told, and what he was led to expect, and he knew in what form he had agreed to accept the Bill, and in what form he had refused to accept it. It was with very great regret that he found himself bound, under the circumstances, to vote with his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford.

said, that his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope) had no one but himself to thank for the extraordinary apprehension under which he appeared to be labouring, because nobody concerned in the Bill had been ignorant that two Members were to be added by that Amendment, and that a third was to be added by the University Act of 1877. It could only have been the result of the want of care that any such misapprehension could have been entertained. His right hon. Friend must have been quite aware of the provisions of the Act of 1877; but yet he now stated that he had thought all along that they were going to add two Members and not three. How his right hon. Friend arrived at that conclusion he (Sir William Harcourt) was unable to comprehend. There had never been any concealment about the matter at all. He had been in constant communication with the hon. Member for Hertford, and had given him to understand the exact position of the matter from first to last. It had been pointed out to the hon. Member from the beginning what the position was, and that this Amendment would add two Members, in addition to the one added under the Act of 1877. The only question was one of numbers, and what the Government proposed was to add three to the present number of Members; and the result of that proposal was simply to restore the Committee to its full working efficiency.

had no wish to prolong the debate. He thought the very least they had a right to expect was that the names of the Members it was proposed to add should be given to the House, so that the House might be able to ascertain whether they were gentlemen already engaged in the discharge of onerous duties. Everything would turn upon that matter; and, therefore, they ought to know who the new Members were.

said, there were one or two verbal Amendments which he desired to introduce into the clause. The first was in line 4, after the word "may," to insert the words "in addition."

moved, in line 5, to introduce, after the words "two in number," "being Members of the Privy Council." As the clause stood, it would have the effect of introducing gentlemen who were not Members of the Privy Council, and that would be entirely an anomalous proceeding.

said, he would not oppose the Amendment, as it would be quite possible for a magistrate to remand a prisoner for two successive periods of seven days each.

said, that the Bill provided that if a person be not prosecuted within six months of his arrival in this country the Secretary of State might, if he thought fit, send him back at the public expense. He thought the period of six months too long, and moved to substitute the word "three" for the word "six."

said, he could not accept the Amendment. It would not be safe to make three months the maximum period of detention, as a man might be brought to England in August, when he would necessarily have to wait three months for the Assizes.

moved, to insert in page 7, line 21, the words "insufficiency of evidence" among the reasons for which a magistrate may dismiss an application.

said, he thought the Amendment unnecessary, as the Bill already provided that the magistrate or other authority should require a primâ facie case to be made out.

said, that, according to the Bill, a man charged with falsely swearing, or making a false declaration, or fabricating evidence, might be tried in any part of Her Majesty's Dominions where such evidence was used, as well as in the place where the actual offence was committed. He moved to add after the word "used" the words "if he be there found."

said, he must oppose the Amendment; but he would suggest, as a compromise, that the clause should be so altered as to render it optional for such a case to be tried where the deposition was made, or where used, "as the justice of the case might require."

said, he wished to move an Amendment to the effect that an Order in Council should not come into force until it had been laid before Parliament.

trusted the Government would not accept the Amendment.

, on behalf of the Government, said, they were unable to accede to it.

said, he wished to put a question to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. As he read the sub-section of this clause, it appeared to him that some difficulty might be occasioned under it. At the last sitting of the Central Criminal Court, two per- sons were convicted of murder. One of them was in charge of the Sheriff of Middlesex, who appointed last Monday morning for the execution; but, fortunately, the man was reprieved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary; but the other prisoner, who was also convicted, was sent back to Maidstone, and he had not heard what the decision of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in that case. But, as he read the clause, these two criminals would have been both left for execution, and it would have been the duty of the Sheriffs of London to have arranged for the execution of one of them; while it would have been the duty of the High Sheriff of Kent to have arranged for the execution of the other. He wanted to know whether this interpretation of the clause was correct, and whether, if that was so, it was convenient in such a case to have two criminals left for execution in regard to whom the arrangements would have to be carried out by two separate and distinct authorities?

wished to point out to the hon. Member that the contingency he had supposed of the execution of two criminals being left in the hands of two sheriffs could only arise in the absence of an order being made. It was required that the judgment of the Court should be carried into execution in any prison as the Judge who tried the case might direct, and any sheriff might be ordered by the Judge to see that the sentence was duly carried out. Therefore, unless an order was made in regard to the execution, the sheriffs of the district in which the prison was situated would carry out the sentence. He took it for granted that the necessary order would be made at the time of the trial. No doubt, if no order was made, some inconvenience might arise; but the truth of the matter was that the Sheriffs of London were frequently called upon to carry out the sentences in the case of criminals who were brought from outlying counties, and no difficulty whatever could arise except in the absence of an order.

said, he was glad to receive the explanation of the hon. Gentleman. It had always been customary, whenever a criminal did not belong to the county of Middlesex, that the duty of taking measures for carrying the sentence into effect should emanate from the authority of the district from which the prisoner came. He had not raised the question from any personal motive. He was thankful to say that his year of office was nearly at an end, and it was not likely that he would have anything to do with any other execution; but he was anxious, in the interest of his successors, that this painful duty should not be thrown upon the sheriffs any more than was absolutely necessary.

begged to move that the Amendments be considered on that day three months. He did so on the ground that the quantity which the Bill permitted to be hawked in the street, a maximum of 20 gallons, would prove dangerous. He also objected to the size of the vessels allowed by the Bill.

said, the Bill, which sought to apply a regulation to a traffic largely carried on, would affect the comfort and convenience of a large number of people. It was proposed to prohibit the selling of more than 10 gallons on carts in the streets, and if that were done the result would be to entirely prohibit the trade. The trade represented to him that they had supplied this useful material largely throughout the country for many years, and that not a single accident had happened. A profit of about 1d. or even less per gallon was made, and it was clear that it would not pay a man to send out a horse and cart for 10d. a day. Even an allowance of 20 gallons, which he understood the Government would accede to, would be insufficient, and the trade asked that they should be allowed to carry non-explosive and tested oil along with the 20 gallons of ordinary oil. He would only add that the hawking of petroleum was of great advantage to the poor, who were by its means furnished with the materials for a cheap and bright light.

observed that as the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) appeared to think that the Bill would encourage a dangerous traffic, and as the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) believed that it would unduly restrict a useful trade, he should, at that period of the Session, allow one set of arguments to answer the other. He hoped that the Bill would be now considered.

said, he proposed to amend the Bill by the substitution of "twenty" for "ten," so as to enable 20 gallons to be hawked.

said, he did not think the limit should be fixed so low as 20 gallons for petroleum not inflammable at 100 degrees.

said, he must also object to this restriction, as the petroleum as usually hawked was not of a highly explosive nature.

said, that 20 gallons in one vessel was a large quantity to carry about for poor people who wanted only small quantities. There might be danger in carrying so large a quantity in one vessel.

said, that petroleum was sold at about 1s. a gallon; and if they limited what was allowed to be carried about to a quantity which would not pay the hawker they would materially interfere with the comfort and convenience of the poor. Since the production of petroleum in such profusion people had their cottages comfortably lighted, and could read their books and newspapers with pleasure—in fact, petroleum was one of the greatest sources of domestic comfort they possessed. What was the danger of carrying 20 gallons of petroleum, when there was none in 10 gallons? Were they going to interfere with the distribution by hawkers of a material which could only be distributed in this particular way on the ground of a danger which did not exist? The interference with the trade would cause great dissatisfaction, and deserved only the name of grandmotherly legislation? On behalf of the colliers in South Yorkshire, who used a great deal of this oil, he protested against the restriction proposed.

said, he only contended for a limitation as to the size of the vessel, not as to the quantity to be sold.

said, that the point had been carefully considered, and 20 gallons was fixed upon as a very fair compromise.

begged to propose an Amendment, the effect of which would be to make it necessary that the article should be carried in inclosed vessels holding not more than one gallon each.

opposed the Amendment.

moved the omission in sub-section 4, lines 22 and 23, of the words "highly inflammable." He contended that there would be no danger if greater freedom of action were allowed, and that, as had been shown by the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Watkin), the trade could not be profitably carried on by selling small quantities.

said, he was glad that the punishment originally contemplated—namely, the attaching of an offending soldier on active service to a waggon, or to a stirrup, had been given up; but he thought they should have some explanation as to the substituted punishment—namely, the attaching the delinquent to a "fixed object." Then as to "transfers." Under the old system, an elder brother serving in one regiment and having a younger brother serving in another was at liberty to claim that his younger brother should be transferred to his regiment; and he desired to know whether that regulation was still in force? With respect to the colour sergeants of Line regiments transferred to Volunteer corps, would they, he asked, on the completion of 21 years of service, be entitled to pension as colour sergeants of the Line or merely as sergeants?

observed, that the Bill purported to be a consolidation of the two last Acts passed in reference to the Army. There were, of course, certain alterations introduced, and it would be satisfactory if they had an official announcement that the Amendments in question were not inconsistent with the Acts referred to. He was of opinion that those who had been so very anxious for the abolition of flogging would find that there would now have to be inflicted punishments much more degrading to the soldier.

said, that the Bill was, as it purported to be, a Consolidation Bill. The alterations made were merely verbal, and were necessary to supply gaps. They were, in fact, explanatory or declaratory. With respect to the question as to colour sergeants, he would be able to reply to it if it were repeated to-morrow. He was very glad that the question of flogging was not to be re-opened. The rules respecting summary punishment had been settled with a great deal of care, and it seemed to him impossible that they could be more definitely drawn up. There must be some punishment which could be inflicted on an emergency in the field, and something must be left to the discretion of the officers. The substituted punishment referred to could only be inflicted where summary punishment was inflicted on active service, and for its infliction the officer in command would be responsible.

, in rising to move—

"That the policy pursued by Her Majesty's present Government with regard to the Foreign and Imperial relations of Great Britain has tended to the dishonour and disintegration of the Empire, and has isolated England in Europe,"

said: I regret that such important questions as those I am about to raise should have to be brought forward at so late a period of the Session. The hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will regret having taken the course he adopted at an earlier hour to-day, in order, by a side-wind, to defeat the Amendment I am about to submit to the House. The hon. Baronet, I hope, will recognize—the country, at all events, will feel—that it would have been a more manly and straightforward course for him to have met the Amendment directly, and to have replied to the arguments that might be advanced. The Military and Diplomatic Estimates for the service of the Grown have been in a great measure wasteful and unnecessary. A larger sum than the House of Commons has ever before been asked to vote is to be given by this Bill. The policy of the Government has been a policy of disturbance and surrender abroad, and anarchy and revolution at home. Nothing can be more germane to the consideration of this Bill than the attempt to show that a large sum of money voted for the service of the Crown has been practically thrown away. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who attempted, by a side-wind, to shirk the discussion of these questions, might have remembered that eminent Members of the present Government had, in previous years, taken a course precisely similar to that which I am taking now. In 1875 the present Secretary of State for India raised a discussion upon the whole policy of the Session on the second reading of the Appropriation Bill; in 1868 the whole Central Asian Question was raised on the same Bill by the present Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as in 1876 the question of the Bulgarian outrages was introduced by the Secretary to the Board of Trade. In one respect, indeed, the question of Foreign and Imperial policy is more important than the grave Home questions which have engrossed the attention of Parliament since the beginning of the Session, to the exclusion of all other subjects, English and Foreign. It is perfectly true that, under the present Government, Ireland has become the scene of triumphant lawlessness and terrorism. It is perfectly true that the state of that unhappy country, which the Ministry found in May, 1880, orderly and progressive, if not prosperous, has, under their incapable charge, in spite of bountiful harvests and increased trade, become, in the language of the Prime Minister, "a shame and a disgrace to England in the eyes of the civilized world." The moment England and the English Government are really in earnest, the moment that they say to the Irish agitators and the Irish law-breakers, "These things shall end and the law shall be maintained, your foul deeds shall be curbed and shall be punished," the moment they take efficient measures to make the violent and the criminal feel that they will meet their deserved punishment, then, Sir, that moment will Ireland once again be prosperous, honest, and quiet. Until this is done, agitation, which pays the agitators so well, will, of course, continue. But, Mr. Speaker, it is far different with those interests of Great Britain which are affected by the aggrandizement and aggression of your rivals and your enemies abroad. If you neglect the advance of those who covet, and who are plotting to obtain, your possessions; if you allow them to acquire, one by one, those valuable positions which nature and history have alike marked out as the bulwarks of your Empire, the time may come, and come far sooner than you dream, when you will find yourselves in presence of superior strength, of that force majeure before which even the bravest men have to yield. You cannot deal with the legions of Russia or the bayonets of France as you would with the wild peasantry of Connemara. Our foreign relations are, as the late Lord Beacons-field tersely summed them up, "the interests of Englishmen in other countries." The Empire of England, "upon the roll of whose drum the sun never sets," as a great orator once said, extends over nearly two-fifths of the surface of the earth, the subjects of the Queen number over 300,000,000 of human beings, the trade of these Islands amounts to over £1,000,000,000 every year. So the strength, the security, the integrity of our Empire in every quarter of the globe is of vital moment to every family in these Realms. It will hardly be credited that the House of Commons has, during a Session of nearly eight months, only given three days to debate upon Foreign and Imperial questions, and then only upon a portion of those questions. The wonder will be increased when it is noted that these eight months covered a period when questions of the greatest moment were at issue, when events were happening in every quarter of the Empire which, from whatever view they may be regarded, must be deemed of the first importance for the interests of the British Power. This must be my excuse for venturing to lay before the notice of the House a subject which I would gladly have introduced before, but which the waste of Parliamentary time by the Ministry has rendered impossible. I contend that the policy of Her Majesty's Government has been throughout unfortunate and disastrous. They have alienated invaluable Allies, and gained nothing in their stead. They have destroyed the wise and permanent settlement of European questions which their Predecessors had aimed at, and in its place raised up a perfect crop of disturbance and turmoil. They have neglected and scoffed at the interests and rights of the Queen's subjects of British blood in distant Colonies, and have driven them wild with injustice; they have stirred up strife and war by their reckless language both in and out of Office; they have incurred defeat, they have carried on wars with discredit, and concluded peace with dishonour. Their policy, or rather their want of policy—for they have had no intelligible or consistent policy—has been equally injurious to the material interests and to the honour of their country. Their mode of conducting the Foreign and Imperial relations of this great country has been the same old masterly inactivity, laisser aller—letting-everything-drift policy—whose fruits are written on the pages of history from 1852 to 1874. There has been a shutting of the eyes to threatening dangers until they burst upon them with overwhelming violence, and then a series of ludicrous makeshifts. The Ministry care only to do that which is cheapest for the moment, but in reality the most expensive, fruitful with trouble and pregnant with disasters. It is true that right hon. Gentlemen opposite are getting a little alarmed at the growing feeling of indignation in the country aroused by their open contempt for great Imperial interests. Some of their supporters, especially those who live at Birmingham, and who have been used to shriek, "Perish India!" must have been greatly astonished to read the speeches of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster at the Mansion House. Why, Sir, if such speeches had been made by Members of the late Lord Beaconsfield's Administration two years ago, they would have been denounced as "Jingoism" and "bastard Imperialism," and I know not what other offensive epithets, which were the stock-in-trade, in default of sensible arguments, of hon. Members opposite during and before the late Elections. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster actually spoke in terms of some warmth of our Imperial interests, and of the value of our Colonies and Dependencies; and the latter right hon. Gentleman used the word "Empire" not less than six times in his address. I am glad that the hon. Baronet who sits for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson), and the hon. Member for Warrington (Mr. Rylands), and the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) were not present. They would have been in need of ample restoratives had they heard their great prototype and prophet speak even kindly of anything so aggressive and national and British as "Empire." The Ministry will be judged by deeds, and not by words. It is too late, after the disintegration and disgrace which have marked their career abroad and at homo, to try at the eleventh hour to cajole the people of England with a few specious phrases which read like the mockery they are in the mouths of those who use them. Even by their words might they be condemned. It would be easy enough to collect passages from the speeches and writings of both right hon. Gentleman during the past to prove their inconsistency now. But it is by their deeds that the British people will judge them. Do you think that a Cabinet who "scuttled out of Afghanistan," who abandoned Candahar, the gate of India, who have allowed Russia to overleap all obstacles, and at one step to advance her armies 400 miles nearer India and close to Herat, will be deemed by the intelligent people of England and of India to have the interests of the Empire at heart? Do you think that Ministers who, by their reckless harangues, stirred up rebellion in the Transvaal, who have abandoned the loyal subjects of the Queen, after enduring severe privations, loss of life and property, to their foes, who have aroused the bitterest indignation among all English-speaking people in South Africa, who have accepted three defeats with meekness, and made an ignominious surrender of all they had been fighting for, will be accepted by the inhabitants of South Africa or of any other Colony as mindful of the interests of the Colonists of England? Do you think that a Government who have allowed France to seize the fertile regions of Tunis, and to make a great advance towards Egypt, will be considered as vigilant for the Imperial and commercial interests of Great Britain? No, Sir. If the retreat, shirking, surrender, and humiliation which have marked the policy of the present Government mean cultivation of Imperial interests, Heaven preserve the Empire from such attentions, for if they go on much longer there will be little left to strive for. I said just now Her Majesty's Government had no consistent policy. They have been consistent in one course, and one course only, and that is a steady attempt to reverse everything done by Lord Beaconsfield. One by one the great achievements of that illustrious man have been reversed, and his measures for the security and greatness of the Empire have been done away with and nullified. It is by illustrating the contrast between the two policies that I can best prove my case. The aim of the late Government was to preserve the honour and interests of the country at home and abroad; it was to defend British interests in every portion of the noble Empire under their charge. [General Sir GEORGE BALFOUR: But they did not do it.] The sneers which used to be directed at these aims by hon. Members opposite are not yet forgotten. In Europe and in Asia the late Ministry found those interests threatened by the same disturbing Power. A bloody war, which had ended in the complete prostration of one of the antagonists—an ancient Ally of England—had raged in Europe. The balance of power was seriously threatened, the most valuable territories and the choicest positions, commercial and military, were about to fall under a gigantic military autocracy, a Power hostile to English interests, and, in my humble judgment, hostile to those of civilization also. I shall not recall the factious and anti-national efforts made by distinguished personages in these Realms to aid the enemies of their country, and to counteract, day by day, week by week, and month by month the patriotic policy of Lord Beaconsfield. Let us consider the ultimate results of Lord Beaconsfield's policy. In July, 1878, a secure basis for the pacification of Europe and for the defence of British interests was established at Berlin. No man who examines the gravity of the position, who realizes what were the difficulties in the way of the Statesman who took the leading part in those memorable transactions, the factiousness and folly at home, the ambition and evil power abroad, can hesitate to say that the Treaty of Berlin must remain for all time a monument of the wisdom, the far-sighted statesmanship, the unwavering patriotism of the Earl of Beaconsfield. Constantinople was saved, Russia was compelled without the sacrifice of a single British life to forego most of her conquests, the peace of Europe was preserved. By the purchase of the Suez Canal Shares the British Government inaugurated a policy which would have gained for this country a predominant interest and influence in Egypt, the great sea route of the present to the East. The Prime Minister has sneered at that brilliant financial achievement, whose value has increased 300 per cent, as "a stock broking transaction." Envy never more demeaned itself than in those words. The English people would have no objection to a few more such "stock broking transactions." By the occupation of Cyprus the command of the great land route of the future is equally secured. When the railroad across Asia Minor, and down the Euphrates Valley is completed, Cyprus will dominate its terminus, whether that be fixed at Tripoli or at Alexandretta. More than this, Famagousta might, by a slight expenditure, be turned into a splendid harbour and coaling station for your ships of war and of commerce. It is only 150 miles from Port Said, the entrance of the Suez Canal, and one-fourth the distance of either Malta or Biserta, which you have just allowed France to seize. These are great results, and as time goes on the country will more and more appreciate the character of the man by whom they were achieved. Another feature in his policy was the Anglo-Turkish Convention—that "insane" Convention, as the Prime Minister called it.

The hon. Member is discussing the policy of the late Mi- nistry, which certainly has no reference to the present Appropriation Bill.

I am only doing so incidentally, in order to contrast the expenditure of the two Ministries and the results achieved by them. But I will not pursue that subject beyond remarking that by the Anglo-Turkish Convention the paramount influence of England in splendid territories, capable of becoming the garden of the East, and over a noble race of men, brave, honest, and friendly, was secured. These fertile regions and this matchless warlike material were thus guaranteed from falling under the cruel sway of Russia, and from becoming the instruments of her unsatiable aggression. In the further East, the frontiers of our wonderful Dominion in India were made impregnable, and vast districts were thrown open to our stagnating manufactures. The railway to Candahar would have given us the trade of Central Asia. At no remote date it might have been prolonged to Herat, and thence through Persia and Asia Minor. All the commerce of these countries would then have debouched on the Mediterranean, close to our Arsenal at Cyprus. Sir, when I consider this noble fabric of statesmanship, this marvellous foresight, these splendid conceptions of creative and patriotic genius, I am tempted to ask what crime this country has committed that it should have been permitted blindly to neglect its vital interests. A lesson, bitter, but necessary, is being taught the people of England for their ingratitude to the great man who laboured so vigilantly, and so successfully, for its greatness and welfare. It is not enough to have policies and to make Treaties. Any dreamer or any skirker can do either. Anybody could devise a fictitious "Concert of Europe," wherewith to tickle the uninformed and the rhapsodical, and any body could make such a peace as you have made in the Transvaal without guarantees, or the possibility of enforcing it. It is for the statesman to devise such combinations as will insure the practical success of his policy, and will insure the permanent observance of his Treaties. It was in his practical arrangements that Lord Beaconsfield displayed such brilliant ability. Alliances—sound, practical, based on common interest—are the mainstay of great peoples and the props of international arrangements. Such an alliance Lord Beaconsfield formed with the two great stable Powers of Central Europe—with powerful Germany, and well-ordered, peace-loving Austria. It was, indeed, an impregnable combination, for what could withstand the Armies of Austria and Germany on the land, or the Fleet of England on the seas? All three Powers were non-aggressive. Germany—contented with her successes and her unity—only asks for peace. Austria dreads war more than any other European Power; and no one would accuse England of a wish for wanton aggression. All three Powers were concerned in restraining, on the one side, the devastating aggression of despotic Russia, on the other, the restless vanity and ambition of Revolutionary France. The alliance with England was most popular among the German and Hungarian people—and why? Because they, wishing for peace, recognized in Lord Beaconsfield and in his arrangements the skill of a Statesman, which could alone preserve the balance of power, and, therefore, alone secure the peace of Europe. The unanimous testimony of the Austrian and the German Press to this fact, both before and since the General Election, proves the feeling both of the Government and the people. I will give only one extract from The Cologne Gazette of March 12th, 1880, the leading and most independent journal of Germany—

"The success of the Beaconsfield Government at the approaching Elections would be a guarantee of the maintenance of European peace."

Nor were the French papers behind their neighbours in admiration of the late Premier. There is no more striking feature of his policy than this—that, although his understanding with the German Powers was well known, France was on perfectly good and cordial terms with this country. His Successors have thrown the alliance with Austria and Germany to the wind, and have succeeded in disgusting Republican France as well. It was evident from the first that the new Ministry would not stand by the settlement of their Predecessors. In the beginning there had been the Prime Minister's famous insult to Austria, an affront offered without provocation and retracted without dignity. A mere verbal apology cannot atone for such a blunder. There never was a more unprovoked, more untrue, and more self-damaging attack made by a public man than this upon Austria. It was unprovoked, except in the promptings of those Russian and Panslavic emissaries who exercised so pernicious an influence over the impressionable mind of the right hon. Gentleman. It was untrue, because at the present time there is no Government in Europe so free, so tolerant, and so truly liberal as that of Austria. The Austrian people enjoy a Constitution and a representative Parliament; they have a free and intelligent Press; they have a beneficent and popular Monarch; they are prosperous and contended to a degree that it would be difficult to match among their neighbours. And there is this in addition to the credit of the Government of Austria, which has accomplished these most admirable results, that they have been achieved in the face of the very greatest natural difficulties—the peculiar geography, the diverse nationality, religion, and history of the various portions of that heterogeneous Empire, rendering the task of preserving unity and good administration most difficult. I have dwelt upon this question of the affront to Austria and the change of policy which it and subsequent events involved, because therein lies the whole key to the policy of the present Government—to their isolation in Europe, and indirectly, though still by a clear connection, to their greatly-weakened position in Asia. There were minor events which happened shortly after the present Government came into Office. There was the famous menace addressed to the German Chancellor by no less a personage than the Vice President of the Council—"Hands off, Bismark!" History will doubtless record the alarm, terror, and utter prostration of the great German Statesman when those petrifying words were conveyed by the telegraph to the seclusion of Varzin. [Mr. MUNDELLA: I never used any such words.] I accept, of course, the disclaimer of the right hon. Gentleman; but the remark has been attributed to him in the public Press for 18 months without contradiction. Then there was the scheme sketched out by the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, just budding into hopeful statesmanship, and ready to deal off-hand in his own way with all the problems of Europe. "In concert with Republican Trance and Free Italy we shall endeavour to cut the Gordian knot of the Eastern Question," &c. "We shall compel Turkey to carry out the reforms of the Treaty of Berlin in spite of Prince Bismarck." The well known intimacy between the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the veiled Dictator of France was to bear startling fruits. We may be sure all these hopeful intrigues were carefully watched at Berlin. This was the new programme. The understanding with the German Power was cast to the winds. Our diplomatic tyros had some plans in its stead, however. "Free Italy and Republican France" were, with Autocratic Russia, to be the new combination that was to enable the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues to carry out their ideas of European policy. What these were it has never yet appeared beyond one feature only—namely, that poor, bleeding Turkey was to be bullied without stint or mercy. The results of the new policy and the new combination are now apparent enough. Russia has shown her friendship and her devotion to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, by breaking her promises and advancing at one stride 400 miles nearer to our Indian Frontier—a gigantic progress which alarms even our faineant Ministry. France, your new friend—whom you abandoned in 1870, without an effort, to her bitter enemy—France has taken advantage of your incapacity, and your proved want of back-bone, to seize a great territory in North Africa. During the process she cajoled you with professions that were each week by week falsified. Your timid remonstrances have irritated French feeling while they stimulated French aggression. What sort of harmony is there now, after a year of your skilful diplomacy, between the two chief members of your combination? How does "Free Italy" feel towards "Republican France?" There is the keenest jealousy and animosity between your boasted Allies. Where are your friends? Where are your Allies in Europe? What have you got in the place of that splendid alliance which Lord Beaconsfield left his country as its bulwark, and his Successors as a precious charge? You have not a single Power, great or small, upon whom you can depend. There is not a State that is attached to you now by the ties of common interest, of gratitude, or of hope for future favours. You have even driven from you, by your gross injustice, the Mahomedans of Turkey, so long your brave and faithful allies; you have, at the same time, irritated the whole Mussulman feeling of the East. How, on the other hand, stands the great Statesman whose friendship you gratuitously despised, and whoso power you recklessly alienated? Prince Bismarck can rely upon the splendid Armies of Germany and Austria. He can rely on the hearty aid of Italy in a European struggle. He can readily obtain the support of the matchless soldiers of Turkey, whose Government he has been as assiduously cultivating as you have been needlessly and unjustly aggravating. He is arbiter of Europe, while you are left out in the cold. It is German interests, and German interests only, and very naturally too, that the German Chancellor now aims at securing. Under Lord Beaconsfield, England had a share in the direction of his policy, and an invaluable guarantee in his alliance. Your reckless affronts and your puny defiances would have been ridiculous enough had they been less injurious to the Empire. Perhaps some attempt may be made to dispute my propositions. The hon. Baronet may, with his usual happy audacity, try to make the House believe that Austria and Germany are still on the same terms towards England that they were 18 months ago. Well, Sir, such a line of defence will be received with some incredulity abroad. The facts are tolerably well known in political circles on the Continent. The Ambassador at Berlin, who so suddenly visited England just after the fiasco of the Demonstration, gave some valuable hints to eminent personages on the Ministry. The late Ambassador (Lord Dufferin) at St. Petersburg, who resigned his post because he was unwilling any longer to share in the responsibility of allowing Russia to hoodwink this country, and steadily press on towards India, gave his views to the Ministry at the same time. The leading statesmen of Austria and Germany have not been very guarded in their private utterances upon the attitude of the British Government. Some very sarcastic comments have fallen from the great Chancellor with regard to the Prime Minister and his Secretary for Foreign Affairs.

I must again point out to the hon. Member that in his re- marks he is travelling very wide of the Question before the House.

I should like to ask the Government if they can dispute my propositions? If anyone really wishes to satisfy himself as to the change of policy on the part of the English Ministry, and the complete alienation of the German Powers, let him read the newspapers of these countries since and before March, 1880. A more marvellous contrast was never before presented by any public literature. Nor do these journals represent merely passing shades of popular feeling. Many of them are well known to be the mouthpieces of the statesmen who direct the policies of these countries. Inspired articles are even more common on the Continent than they are in England. There are many of these criticisms in such papers as The Cologne Gazette, The Nord Deutsche Zeitung, The Neue Friee Presse, and other Austrian papers, so scathing and so hostile to the policy of the Prime Minister that I would not like to quote them. Let hon. Members turn to the Blue Books issued by the Government, especially those relating to the Berlin Conference, the sham "Concert," and the affairs of Greece. They will there fail to find a single expression of warmth or cordiality towards the British Government on the part of Austria or Germany. The tone is cold, reserved, and critical; and even sarcastic throughout. Contrast the despatches and the conversations of Austrian and German statesmen with those of Russia and France. The former are bursting over with effusive sympathy and hopeful ambition. For some time, also, there is a considerable cordiality exhibited in French despatches; but that gradually cools down, until about the time of the rejection of the piratical proposals of the Ministry with regard to Smyrna and of the separation of the Fleets at Gravosa, they get as cold as the tone of the German Powers. It is a peculiar attribute of the interesting foreign policy of right hon. Gentlemen opposite that it not only alienates the allies of their Predecessors and of their country, but that it soon disgusts even their own special friends. I am told that quite recently there have been some attempts on the part of Her Majesty's Government to wards a rapprochement with the Powers that they slighted. The right hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) is credited with some statesmanlike influence in that direction. No doubt, experience has taught even the Prime Minister the extreme danger of his course and the extreme desirability of having some allies in Europe. If this Government will frankly reverse their steps and restore the beneficial alliance with Austria and Germany, no one will rejoice more than I shall. Much may be done even yet to revert to the stable guarantees secured for British interests by the Earl of Beaconsfield. Only I will ask one thing—let common gratitude be shown to the illustrious Statesman who showed you the path in which to tread, and whose wisdom, experience—bitter, but salutary—is now demonstrating to you. The year 1880 will be recalled in history as the year of the "Demonstration" that never dared to demonstrate, and the "Concert" that was never united except in its disagreements. The Eastern policy of the Ministry will be for ever connected with the fiasco of Dulcigno, and the ridiculous efforts to put a good face on the failure of the Concert. This preposterous theory of "the Concert of Europe" was first broached about the time when the late Ministry distinctly showed that they had a policy of their own about the Eastern Question, that they meant to pursue it regardless of jealous faction at home, and of hostile ambitions abroad. "The Concert of Europe" was intended to take the place, in the popular imagination, of the old manly and British policy in the East—the policy of Pitt and Wellington, of Palmerston and Beaconsfield; nor, Sir, will anyone deny its authors a considerable amount of ingenuity and a keen eye for popular credulity. It has, I admit, a very enticing sound. It is eminently calculated to tickle the fancy of the uninformed and the sentimental. It would be, indeed, a noble and desirable end if an International Tribunal, impartial and philanthropic, could be found, before which the Powers could, with confidence, lay their grievances, and before whose verdict they would bow. That the time will ever come when such a Tribunal can be constituted, many doubt; but no one can believe that it exists or can exist at present. Who that regards the facts of recent or present European history can believe in any real concert between the Powers? The state of Europe at this moment—its peoples turned into vast camps, millions of men armed to the teeth, and trained for self-defence or mutual aggression, the keen intellects and watchful Governments that are, on all sides, straining eagerly for every chance of increased power and aggrandizement; all show the most hopeful that Europe is still far from any such Utopia as "a Concert." These are à priori considerations which must occur to every practical man. It needed no special knowledge to foresee the absolute impracticability of your schemes. What, then, is to be substituted for them, may be asked? Stable alliances between States, and a defence of the balance of power, I reply. The balance of power has been ridiculed by our philosophical Radicals, those dreamers of dreams, and universal overturners of well-tried and practical policy. It is a bulwark of the weak, and a curb upon the over-weening. By the balance of power, we mean that theory and practice of statesmanship which seeks to prevent any one State from gaining such advantages and such aggrandizement as would make it dangerous to the possessions or to the independence of its neighbours. You tried a novel principle, that of "the Concert," and, at the first touch of practical trial, it burst and vanished, like the soap bubble it was. You claim to have accomplished the surrender of Dulcigno by your Concert, and by its only achievement—the Naval Demonstration. It is doubtful enough whether even that notable performance was the result of the Demonstration which never dared to demonstrate, but which lay trembling off Ragusa for 10 weeks doing nothing, while you diplomatically protested, and struggled, and implored in vain. The Porte had never refused to surrender Dulcigno. It only asked for time to soothe down the natural indignation of its Albanian subjects. All and more than the time it ever asked for it obtained, and no repetition of the policy of coercion is likely to be seen. You tried coaxing and bribery of revolution in Ireland, and signally failed. You tried bullying and coercion in Turkey, and equally failed. It is, indeed, only through the prudence and caution of France that this country was not involved in desperate enterprizes, and Europe plunged into a universal conflagration. Had Prance been ready to join with England and Russia in their policy of exasperation and of brigandage against Turkey, the flame would have spread over that vast powder magazine which the East now presents. Russia was anxious enough to see war break out, with England on the wrong side. Bulgaria and Roumelia were crowded with Russian officers, ready, on the signal being given, to rise in insurrection against the Turkish Power. Servia was also on the alert; Greece was arming under the same incentive. Amid the general ruin the arch-plotter would have found it easy to seize Constantinople, and perhaps the whole of Asia Minor. Had Dulcigno been bombarded, had your piratical proposals as to seizing Smyrna not met with a firm veto from France, as well as from the German Powers, had you been allowed to use your Fleet as you wished in aid of Greece, the fatal spark would have been applied. Europe and England owe a deep debt of gratitude to the statesmen abroad, who checked you in your wild, crusading zeal against our old Ally of the Crimea. Prince Bismarck, Baron Haymerle, and M. St. Hilaire did more for the interests of England than her own Ministry. Well, Sir, a great flourish of trumpets has been made over the Greek negotiations. The Ministry claim the cession of territory to Greece some 18 months after they took Office as a great triumph of their diplomacy. I have no wish to depreciate the service of the right hon. Member for Ripon to his Party and to the State. I believe those services to have been, in some respects, more deserving of the public gratitude than is generally known, for they were principally directed to counteract the mischief caused and threatened by his own Chiefs at home. But, Sir, when I listened to the overwhelming congratulations which were addressed in this House to the right hon. Gentleman some weeks back by the Prime Minister, and the pæan of rejoicing that was raised over the Greeko-Turkish Convention, I could not help wondering what more could have been said had the right hon. Gentleman returned covered with the laurels of a Congress of Vienna or of Berlin. The Greek people and the Greek Committee in this country would, if they spoke their minds, tell a very different tale. They would speak of exaggerated promises which were never kept, of great hopes rashly excited which were betrayed, of an unnecessary and crushing military expenditure and national debt, which were all caused by the mislead- ing attitude of the British Cabinet. They would tell you of boastful undertakings and of ignominous retreat, of two States brought to the brink of war and overwhelmed with a ruinous expenditure, because the British Ministry could not see in July, and August, and October, 1880, what they were forced to see in April and May, 1881. The net result of your Greek policy is this, that, in May, 1881, you compel Greece to take that which she might have had in October, 1880. That delay cost Greece 60,000 men taken from useful industry, and £ 6,000,000. In this she has gained absolutely nothing which she might not have had without that loss and expense. After protesting that she should have nothing less than what was sketched out for her by your Conference at Berlin, you compelled her to take three-fifths of that amount. Talk about the Concert of Europe. Why, all through these Greek negotiations, from the Berlin Conference down to the final Note of Lord Granville—a plaintiff and pathetic confession of disappointment and surrender—there is absolutely no Concert visible; at least, I defy you to find it in the Ministerial Blue Books. The Powers are constantly giving advice different from that of England. Action and diplomatic pressure is taken of which England is quite in the dark. Good advice is given to Greece by the other Powers as to curbing her impetuous war fever, in which England does not join. Our Representative at Athens is actually told to do nothing that will lead the Greeks to suppose they are not to be supported by England in their extortionate demands. The Hellenic Government is advised by the right hon. Gentleman to mobilize—a fatal and costly piece of advice. [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE: We were the last to withdraw our advice against mobilization.] Yes, Sir, I have heard the hon. Gentleman say that before; but I have never been able to find any proof that the other Powers either gave or withdrew such advice. But, whether you were the first or the last, you were greatly to blame for encouraging Greece to plunge into those ruinous preparations for war which cost her so much, and which all but provoked a fatal and a general struggle. In fact, there might have been a real Concert in August and October, 1880, and one for peace and settlement, had the British Cabinet not stood in the way and refused to join in the good advice which every other Power was tendering to Greece. Sentiment and the Greek Committee were too strong for the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. He held out all through the winter, and destroyed what there was of his own "Concert." It was not until April this year that he capitulated. The right hon. Gentleman had thought as the late Government held a Congress he would hold a Conference. It took place in the first flush of the new Ministry's power, before the world had tested their capacity and resolution and found them wanting. Russia, of course, inspired the programme. France fell in with it, because she was anxious to secure the Hellenic factor for her ally, and to have England on her side in a European war, and Italy made no secret of her readiness to go with the highest bidder. Germany and Austria were thus outvoted at the Berlin Conference, and the British proposals, which every sensible man in Europe knew were excessive and impracticable, were carried with a rapidity which might have caused some little anxiety among less sanguine politicians than those on the Treasury Bench. But the German Ministers had no doubt as to what would happen, and they set themselves quietly, but steadily, to counterwork the reckless projects of the British Government. How they succeeded the present position of Europe and of England sufficiently shows. As the Concert developed, and the Naval Demonstration became more trouble some, the more pronounced were the organs of the German and Austrian Governments in their sarcastic criticism. I could give the Treasury Bench enough quotations from the Press of Europe ridiculing their "Concert" to drive even them from their belief in its efficacy. Never was there such a burst of humour and indignant criticism from all quarters at any international performance. As Baron Hay-merle sensibly said—

"An arbitrating Europe which attributed to herself the wisdom for solving every difficult problem, and could be made responsible for every vexed question, together with its settlements, such an Europe did not exist."

And, again, it appears, from the evidence of the same Minister, that the Demonstration was not an act of the Concert showing its efficacy, but only a means to an end; that is to say, that the other Powers assented to it in order to gratify the vanity of the British Cabinet. It was just possible to keep a show of concerted action over the affair of Dulcigno, for nobody cared particularly about the fate of its 5,000 inhabitants; but the moment you tried to apply the Concert to more serious questions, the moment you proposed to seize Smyrna or to visit the Piraeus in order to settle the Greek Question in your own way, that moment the Concert dissolved like a rope of sand. The abandonment of the Austro-German alliance has been evil fruit for England in the Mediterranean. Without Allies, and with your hands full at the Cape and in Ireland, the Government have been obliged to look on quietly, while France committed an act of high-handed injustice and international immorality in her absorption of Tunis. They have been half-dupes, half-accomplices in that wretched business; not daring to openly tell France her aggression would be resisted, and not daring to tell the Parliament and people of England that they acquiesced in the French designs. So they have fallen, and fallen as they deserved, between two stools. They have aggravated France, and they have not prevented her from doing as she aimed. They have disappointed and disgusted the people of England, and they have not gained any gratitude or friendship from the Power to whom they have given way. It is said, and with much show of probability, that Germany has been very willing to see her Gallic neighbours engaged in this enter prize. French enter prize may thereby be diverted from the Rhine. French revenge may be cooled by the sweet morsels of North Africa. Certainly the danger of an alliance between France and Italy is completely at an end; and several French Corps d' Armée find ample employment in dealing with the troubles which the invasion of Tunis have aroused. While we are giving up territory and influence in South Africa, France is spreading rapidly over North Africa. She is acquiring regions which were once the granary of the Roman Empire, and even the rival of Rome for the supremacy of the world. A step further and the French legions adjoin on Egypt; and of what avail then would be your Fleet to secure your main road to India and the East? You have driven Prince Bismarck to other alliances. Take care lest he does not avenge himself at your expense. For Holland and the command of the North Sea, the German Chancellor might not grudge even Egypt to France. I pass now, Sir, to a brief review of those questions of Imperial interest to which public attention has already been to a considerable extent directed, and which I shall only refer to in the most concise and general way. The reckless, the unprovoked abandonment of Candahar in the face of, and in despite to, the urgent and all but unanimous opinion of all the experts of England and of India, military and political alike, was manfully protested against by the Conservative Party both inside and outside the House. In that protest the great mass of public opinion outside the House cordially concurred. In deference to faction us Electioneering pledges, and from a petty desire to reverse all that you could of Lord Beaconsfield's policy, that matchless position, the impregnable bulwark of Hindostan, the key and gate of India, the great mart of Afghanistan and of all Central Asia was given up. It was given up in the face of the Russian advance, and in violation of your solemn undertakings to the Native population. Your former conqueror is now again master of the city you abandoned, and is oppressing the people who flourished and grew rich under your rule. The Russians, so far from retiring after Geok Tepe, as the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs told the House, have advanced another 150 miles; their head-quarters are now at Askabad, not 300 miles from Herat, and their outposts are close to Meshed, the capital of Persian Khorassan. They are still annexing fresh territory, and their latest acquisition is the fertile valley of Keshef, which will give them complete mastery over Khorassan and Herat. While you have left to ruin the invaluable railway which Lord Beaconsfield all but completed to Candahar, and which could have poured your manufactures, and, if necessary, your soldiers, within four weeks from leaving these Islands, into the heart of Afghanistan, Russia is hurrying on her railway from the Caspian towards Herat, and sweeping into her net the whole commerce of these regions, from which you will now he rigidly excluded.

I do not see the relevancy of these remarks to the Question of the second reading of the Appropriation Bill?

The tendency of all my remarks is to prove that the Government wasted the resources placed at their disposal by the Bill before the House. Then there is the terrible danger to your Indian Empire from this proximity of the Armies of your great Rival. Will nothing rouse this Ministry from their fatal stupor? Russia has crossed the desert which was the natural boundary; she has acquired a fresh basis, fertile territories, and splendid and warlike auxiliaries within striking distance of your beneficent Dominion in India. The railway brings her in close communication with her central resources. Believe me, the danger is imminent, it is at your doors. If you neglect it now, if you do not instantly make such statements and take such steps as will prevent Russia from occupying Herat, and from adding to her enormous armies the brave Turcomans of Merv, in a few years, perhaps before 10 years are passed a Way, you will be engaged in a life-and-death struggle with Russia for the possession of India, not among the mountains and passes of Afghanistan, where every advantage of position, time, and preparation would be on your side, but on the plains of Hindostan itself, with every disaffected Prince and Nationality blazing into revolt in your rear. England may be successful in such a struggle. Heaven grant she may be, for her own greatness, wealth, and security, and not less for the sake of the people of India, upon whom her civilizing dominion has conferred priceless blessings. They would find the Tartar and the Cossack very different masters. But what will be the cost in men and in treasure of such a struggle? Sir, the time will come when the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington), who many have thought to be superior to the ignorance and crotchets of Birmingham, and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Afiairs, who, while he retained his independence, showed some statesmanlike appreciation of the real objects of Russia, will bitterly regret that their names are connected more than any others with the precipitate and disastrous abandonment of Candahar last April. I very much fear that the retreat from Candahar and the capture of Geok Tepe will prove to have been the turning-point in the history of Asia. They may too probably have sealed the doom of thousands of brave Englishmen and the waste of millions of British treasure. In India you have alienated Native feeling by your retreat and want of courage; but at least you could say this—that your retirement took place after your Commander had signally vindicated the honour of the British arms, and had chased the conqueror of Maiwand from Candahar. It remained for South Africa to show a British Ministry, for the first time in British history, shrinking away after a triple defeat, and concluding a humiliating peace with an insolent enemy. You sacrificed the safety, the property, the rights of Colonists of British blood and of tried loyalty, and the liberties of nearly 1,000,000 of the Natives to a few thousand semi-savage Dutchmen, whose good shooting baffled you for the moment, and whose religious and political cant imposed upon you. The rebellion in the Transvaal was stirred up by your inflammatory if not your seditious harangues. The war which you began, and undertook to prosecute until the honour of the Sovereign and the rights of her subjects were vindicated, you conducted with discredit and defeat; the peace you refused to make at first, you concluded with dishonour, after being thrice vanquished in the field. Those very speeches in Mid Lothian, to which I have referred, prove the hollowness of the protest, that it was not until after the rising and after the Boer victories that you realized the Dutch opposition to the British supremacy. The Prime Minister was thoroughly aware of it, and it was his duty when the annexation was first made by Sir Theophilus Shepstone and his 25 policemen, and during the discussion which then took place in this House, to have protested against it with all the force of his transcendent eloquence and with his unequalled energy. After it was a fait accompli, and the British flag flew over the Transvaal, he should have held his peace. Then, Sir, there is another pretence, which formed a large portion of the defensive arguments of the advocates of the Ministry—that they intended all along to grant these terms to the Boers, that negotiations were begun and being actively prosecuted before the defeats in the field, and that it was a noble and magnanimous course not to break them off simply because of military disasters. Sir, upon this I make two statements. The first, that this plea conveys a far more damaging condemnation of the action of the Ministry than any I have heard advanced by their opponents. If Her Majesty's Government were willing to offer the Dutch rebels this complete capitulation in December and early in January, I ask why they refused to offer the same terms when the news of the rising first reached this country? I ask why they prated about "vindicating the authority of the Queen?" Why did they put the troops of England in motion? Why did they send out large and frequent reinforcements? Why did they send out the hero of Candahar on a fruitless promenade to Natal? Why was Sir George Colley allowed to set out on his ill-starred march? Why was he permitted to risk the life of a single British soldier in an expedition which you now declare to have been perfectly objectless? You knew that your General was about to attack the enemy encamped on the soil of your Colony, ten days before Laing's Nek. Why did you not flash your countermanding orders to him by the same telegraph by which you dictated step by step all the details of your ignominious surrender? You knew of the proposed attack on Majuba Hill seven days before it was made; why was not that prevented? Sir, I say, fearlessly, that if the statements of the Government made in the last debate were true, that they were willing from the first to grant these terms to the Boers, then the lives of those 750 brave soldiers who perished under the deadly fire of the Boers were wantonly and cruelly thrown away. The blood-guiltiness for the loss of those precious lives rests upon the Ministry that could conduct a war so unnecessarily and so discreditably, and end it with so much dishonour. The fact is, that there were no real negotiations until after your defeats. There was merely an attempt on President Brand's part to get you to make some definite proposal, an attempt you deliberately baulked by evasive answers. You were, as usual, drifting along, trusting to the chapter of accidents, as I can prove from your own Blue Books. The reverses in South Africa and a feeble splutter of Radical agitation here, wrought the usual conversion in a brave Liberal Ministry. Suddenly, after Majuba Hill, you discovered the blood-guiltiness you had failed to see before. That there was a complete change, the sudden recall of General Roberts proves. As you have sacrificed the honour of the whole Army under your direction in South Africa, so you have treated the special cases which claimed the attention and the vindication of any Government worthy of the name. The atrocious massacre of the detachment of the 94th at Brunker's Spruit was contrary to the laws of war. What have you done to punish the men who ambuscaded your brave soldiers, entrapped them by a flag of truce, and then shot them down? Then there are the cold-blooded murders of Captain Elliott, Mr. Malcolm, and Mr. Barber. What steps have you taken to bring the well-known criminals to justice? None whatever. The Boers are too good, too brave, too wild and free, too sternly religious, to be called to account for their misdeeds ! It is rather what the President of the Board of Trade was pleased to call "so-called loyalists," who deserve punishment. "So-called loyalists!" Sir, when I heard these words from the mouth of a British Minister, who was advocating a cowardly surrender, applied to men, subjects of the Queen, who had endured suffering, privations, loss of property, in many cases the death of their dearest, for the honour of their country and the integrity of the Empire; when I heard that shameful stigma applied by a Minister of the Crown to brave and honest Englishmen, whom he was bound by his position, by his oaths of Office, by the noble traditions of the past, to protect and defend, I wondered what word of scorn and of indignation those betrayed and affronted Colonists would apply to a "so-called Minister" who had added insult to the injury they had already suffered. You have done all this in the name of justice and humanity, the same sort of justice and humanity which your prototype and darling, the Russian Crusader, used to put in the forefront of his "civilizing mission" against Turkey. I have endeavoured to prove the correctness of the terms in which my Motion described the injurious effect of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. I believe that as time goes on the truth of my criticism will be more and more evident. The narrow, parochial, and stunted policy connected with the Birmingham school is not regarded with favour by the working classes of this country. The idea of an England indifferent to her great interests abroad, reckless of the splendid influence and dominion which has been handed down by the great men of the past, careless of the splended future which the statesman and the patriot would aspire to secure, is repellent to the great mass of Englishmen. There is a growing feeling of indignation in this country, and very widely existing among the working classes, at the neglect with which the present Ministry have treated the interests of the country abroad. The mass of Englishmen realize the fact that if the policy of retreat and dishonour pursued by the present Government is continued, its authors will find themselves unable to defend even those sordid objects for which they have sacrificed honour, greatness, and Empire.

Sir, I have some doubt whether I ought or ought not to allow the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down to be buried in the midst of that solemn silence that appears in all quarters to have been prepared for its due interment. But, on the whole, I think it would not be right that a precedent should be set according to which a Government should allow to pass, without observation of any kind, an accusation which was perfectly unbroken from the beginning to the end of a long speech, of which I should not go too far if I were to call it outrageous. The hon. Member says it will hardly be believed that there have been only three nights' debates during the Session upon foreign politics. Well, perhaps that will hardly be believed; and it will hardly be believed that a fourth night has occurred in the Session which is to vindicate that foreign policy, under circumstances so extraordinary as those under which the hon. Gentleman has come forward to discharge his duty to his country. For, while the hon. Gentleman compares himself to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) and other Leaders of Parties who have availed themselves, on former occasions, of the Appropriation Bill to review the proceedings of the Session, he performed that operation with a feeling which was duo either to courage or to insensibility—I know not which—to an audience of two Gentlemen on his own side of the House, both of whom, I believe, were detained on those Benches, not by the desire to follow the course of thought of the hon. Gentleman, but to be upon their look-out for other measures which were coming forward, and in which they took an interest. Such, Sir, are the circumstances under which the hon. Gentleman delivers this remarkable address. Now, with respect to the address itself, it is within my power to deal with it very shortly. Everything that the hon. Gentleman asserts I deny, and everything that he denies I shall assert. I think the application of that succinct formula will dispose of the whole oration we have heard. It will leave him and me in a position of mortal combat. It is painful, Sir, for me certainly to be put in that position in relation to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member has a great deal of human feeling. At various periods of his speech, he referred to the deep pain—I do not know if he used the word "anguish"—the deep and excruciating pain he knew he was inflicting on me. And he did this with a kindliness which approached almost to commiseration, for which, I can assure him, I am truly thankful. And as to the nature of that pain, however much I suffer from it, I will endeavour to bear up against it as well as I can until the hon. Gentleman, on some other occasion, gives me my quietus by another oration as pungent and as convincing as that which he has delivered to-night. The hon. Gentleman says that the purchase of the Shares in the Suez Canal has given us the command of that channel of communication with India. I say it has given us three votes—I think that is the number—in a Board of 25, and has given us no other command whatever. And if that is what the hon. Member understands by the command over the communications with India, I rejoice to find that we are condemned by him at every point, because his condemnation gives me additional reason to hope and believe that we are in the right. He says that Cyprus gives us another command over the route to India. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I said over the land routes of the future.] Over the land routes of the future! The hon. Gentleman can see into the future a great deal further than any of those who usually sit round him. And what a pity it was that he could not muster a single Member of his Party to come and be illuminated by his discourse! I thought there was consolation in store for him when the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) arrived in the House with a handful of volumes. Those hopes were dissipated when I was told that the hon. and learned Member for Bridport had, indeed, arrived in the House, but with intentions perfectly distinct; that his investigations had been directed to another quarter, and that he was reserving the stores which he intends to bestow on the House for one of the later Orders of the Day. Well, the hon. Member for Eye perceives in the Island of Cyprus a power of controlling the routes of the future across Asia. The hon. Gentleman has, no doubt, in his mind plans for, in the first place, making up the deficiency in the Revenue of Cyprus; then he has a few millions in his pocket for constructing a harbour and an arsenal, building them out of the sea; and he is then prepared to deal with the very easy and simple question of civilizing and reducing to perfect peace all the countries, beginning with the source of the Orontes and ending with the Tigris and the Euphrates, which are to constitute the land route of the future, Well, I hope he will reserve some portion of his eloquence until that future comes more nearly in view; for at present, undoubtedly, it is somewhat in the case of the Spanish Fleet, of which it was said—

"The Spanish Fleet thou canst not see, because

It is not yet in sight."

I confess I am rather at a loss to account for the speech of the hon. Gentleman; but, on the whole, I think I am not wrong in ascribing it to the ever-increasing and at length intolerable pains of prolonged retention. All these stories, I believe, he has been amassing since the accession to power of the present Government. When I consider, Sir, the nature of the materials he has been taking in, consisting, not of genial food for the mind, but of ideas and notions which are of the most painful and poisonous character, all intended, no doubt, to be vented on his antagonists, and which might have been vented without inconvenience to himself if he had had an earlier opportunity, I am not surprised that he found himself unable any longer to retain them without destruction to the mind itself in which they were stored. Consquently, it was not choice, but necessity, that led him to make the speech which he has given us to-night. Really, Sir, it is not necessary to go over the ground taken by the hon. Gentleman. I have already ex- ceeded the modest period that I had marked out for myself; but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be more careful as to the description of compliments he bestows on his friends. The most pointed of his attacks was an attack on the present Government, and myself in particular, for the disparagement of Austria. And how does he deal with his friends in Austria? He says that the Army of Austria is under the command of Prince Bismarck. These were the very words of the hon. Member. Whether he knew the meaning of the words he uttered it is not for me to determine or inquire; but the words which fell from his lips I carefully treasured, as I would treasure everything that falls from him. I hope, however that when next he alludes to Austria he will, at least, be prepared to accord to her the credit that is due to a great and independent Power, and that he will not tell the House of Commons that the Army of Austria is under the command of the Minister of a foreign State. I do not think that he was nearer the mark when he said of Turkey that her Army was under the command of Prince Bismarck. Prince Bismarck has one magnificent Army under his command, and, no doubt, with that is perfectly content; and I greatly doubt whether, if Prince Bismarck reads in some corrected report the discourse of the hon. Gentleman, he will feel greatly indebted to him for the eulogies he has bestowed. But as to Turkey, I tell the hon. Gentleman plainly that he is entirely mistaken; that there can be no terms better than those on which the Government of Her Majesty stands with the Government of the Sultan. And if the hon. Gentleman chooses to refer to the manner in which we commenced our career in respect to our relations with the Sultan's Government, let him read the conversations of the Turkish Minister at this Court with Lord Granville and myself, which were published to the world 12 months ago, and have never been contradicted. The hon. Gentleman says that I have, at some period or another, affected to feel an interest in the British Empire, and that this affectation to feel an interest in the British Empire has excited great surprise among nay friends. Well, Sir, I wish to leave that observation, and, indeed, my wish would have been to leave all the observations of the hon. Gentleman free course over the whole world, to circulate and distil themselves, if they could or would, into the minds of civilized mankind, in order that the digestion of the various cultivated races might dispose of them in the proper manner. For my part, I have no pretentions to offer an argumentative answer to speeches such as that which the hon. Member has delivered to-night. Let me, however, tell him this. He is young; he takes great pains; he has plenty of time to gain instruction; he has plenty of time to unlearn and to cast off error. Let him apply that time to good purposes; but let him learn this—that if he wishes really to make an impression on the world, if he wants really to give aid to his friends or to inflict disaster on his adversaries, the very first lesson he must learn is to restrain his universal and sweeping propositions within the bounds of fact and actual experience, to submit himself to be taught by the lessons of the world and the lessons of the day, and to learn and know that moderation, reserve, consideration for those with whom you have to deal, and the endeavour to bring your propositions into exact conformity with the circumstances of the ease, is, for him and for everybody else, the very first condition of any useful and durable success.

said, he had to apologize to the House for calling their attention to the now rather monotonous subject of the affairs of Ireland, after the excursions they had just taken to Cyprus, Jerusalem, and other foreign places. He would not have troubled the House on the present occasion but for an answer he received two or three days ago from the Attorney General for Ireland, when he ventured to call the attention of the House to the case of a magistrate in the County Kerry, Mr. Herbert, J.P., whose relations with the place had become quite notorious. He wanted to bring before the House the language used by this magistrate on the Bench. After he had learned that the police, who had been engaged in protecting a process-server in serving writs had been regaled by the people with new milk, he said it was simply shocking that the Royal Irish Constabulary should be drinking new milk with a riotous and terrible mob, when they ought to have been engaged in dispersing it, and that he wished somebody had been in charge of the police on that occasion who would have ordered the mob to be "skivered," and buckshot to be used against it. He had brought this language before the House before, but could not say he had ever supposed that the result would be the removal of the magistrate from the Bench, for while Englishmen were at all times ready to seize upon words and expressions which might be used against the people of Ireland, they seemed to find no fault at all in anything that might be said by the landlords against the people. When he had made a quotation the other night from John Mitchell, he had been received with marked disapproval; but no such signs were forthcoming when he repeated Mr. Herbert's remark "that the people ought to be skivered." He considered that the reprimands Mr. Herbert had received were altogether insufficient. He asked, was it proper that an Irish magistrate should be allowed to continue on the Bench who had not only used the language quoted, but had been arrested for being drunk and disorderly by the local police? Again, at Ballydehob another magistrate, Mr. Nottar, declared that he hoped the people would soon be treated to powder and ball, and went about with a revolver in his pocket, and perhaps several glasses of Irish whisky interiorly disposed.

I rise to Order. These, if they are true, are very scandalous statements; if they are untrue, it is very shameful of the hon. Member to make them, and I ask whether the hon. Member is in Order?

The hon. Member has made certain assertions on his own responsibility, and I am not disposed to interfere.

said, no doubt, his statements about this magistrate were very shocking to a gentleman of the high character of the hon. Baronet. Unfortunately for the hon. Member, his statements were so true that the Government could not deny them, and it was their truth that constituted the poignancy of his remarks. The present was not the first time he had made those statements, and if he was compelled to repeat them it was because he had failed to obtain any satisfaction from Her Majesty's Government, The Ballydehob magistrate had admitted having used the expressions attributed to him, and Mr. Herbert admitted the expression "buckshot," but denied the soft impeachment of "skivered." The Chief Secretary had been told that scores of witnesses could be produced who could prove the use of the words complained of; but the Government refused all inquiry into the subject; while, at the same time, they flung into the teeth of the Irish Members every word which was used in denouncing those Irish landlords who had brought social ruin upon their country. These cases did not stand alone. Even the hon. Baronet the Member for Hythe (Sir Edward Watkin) must have heard of another Irish magistrate—Mr. Clifford Lloyd. That name had penetrated the dull walls of the House of Commons. [Mr. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT dissented.] He did not marvel at the ignorance of the Member for Eye, as he was generally engaged at Jerusalem or Madagascar.

I rise to Order. You, Sir, called the hon. Member for Eye to Order because his remarks were not relevant to the Question before the House. I wish to ask are the hon. Member for Wexford's observations relevant to the Question now before us?

I understand the hon. Member for Wexford to be referring to the conduct of one or more paid magistrates in Ireland, and the salaries of those magistrates are included under this Bill; he is, therefore, quite in Order.

said, he was sorry that a Member of the high character and great dignity of the Member for Hythe should subject himself to being unhorsed a second time. For the information of the hon. Baronet, he would just add that when he he had endeavoured to bring this matter forward in Committee of Supply he had been told by the Chief Secretary that the proper time would be during the consideration of the Appropriation Bill. He must blame the Government for having refused all inquiry into the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. He (Mr. Healy) was prepared to testify personally as to the conduct of that magistrate; but the present grandmotherly Government cast its shield over Mr. Lloyd. Another magistrate in the West of Ireland had published a book full of the most odious libels of the Irish people. This was how a magis- trate occupied his paid leisure—in libelling the people who paid his salary. What would be thought of an English magistrate in India who published in the vernacular scurrilous libels upon the people among whom he ruled? Could it be expected that the Natives would have any respect for justice administered by such a man? In one of the Cork papers he read the report of the prosecution of a man by the police on the charge of being drunk and disorderly. He was fined 2s. 6d. and costs, and on leaving the Court he thanked the magistrates, Messrs. Monsell and J. F. Bland. Mr. Monsell called back the defendant Noonan, and told him that if he did not thank the police he should be sent to prison for a month. The defendant then thanked the police, and was discharged. Could anything be more tyrannical and debasing than this? If such a thing occurred in Turkey under the rule of the Pashas, what a noise we should have in this country by certain Members of that House. This was a sample of the way in which the people were constantly harassed, insulted, and annoyed by the paid magistracy in Ireland. He complained that when they brought forward these cases all inquiry was refused. In England a magistrate was dismissed because he gave a free breakfast at an election time; but in Ireland no man was driven from the Bench except he wast a patriot. It had been attempted to drive the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) from the Bench; but he had not committed himself sufficiently far. When the Government tried to fasten on hon. Members on that side bloodthirsty charges, why did they refuse an inquiry in the case of magistrates who used language which paled even before that of O'Donovan Rossa, with which the right hon. Gentleman opposite was so familiar? The magistrates in a coercion-ruled country had unlimited power, so that in many ways they met the people at every turn in their daily life, and it was not too much to ask that these men should be placed above suspicion. The conduct of the Government was reprobated by every man in Ireland. If these cases had been brought forward as occurring in any place under the sun but Ireland, they would have called forth the indignation of the Radical Members; but now they were silent.

said, that the hon. Member for Wexford stated that he had raised the question in consequence of an unsatisfactory answer received from the Government with respect to the conduct of Mr. Herbert. He was not in the House when that answer was given, and was unacquainted with either the question or the answer; he, therefore, was in no way responsible for the answer of which the hon. Member complained, and could only regret that whoever gave the answer was not then present to vindicate it. No doubt, the hon. Member had obtained his information from persons to whom he gave credit. He (the Solicitor General for Ireland) believed that Mr. Herbert, in answer to a letter from the Lord Chancellor, had admitted, to some extent, the truth of some of the statements which he was charged with making. No one could reprobate more strongly than he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) would the use on the Bench of any language calculated to bring into disrepute the magistracy of the country, or the administration of the law. Being a member of the Irish magistracy himself, he had had many opportunities of judging of their character and procedure in general, and he was happy to say that he had never been present when language of that kind had been used. It was really going too far to select two instances of unpaid magistrates using improper language, and then found upon them a general charge against the magistracy at large. He had an intimate acquaintance with many of the Irish magistracy, and he could honestly say that, as a body, they were a painstaking, upright, and conscientious body of men. He heard people talk of the law and administration of the law in Ireland who knew as much of the subject as they did of Timbuctoo; but, so far as the law in Ireland went, the Government had no more power over county magistrates than the Crown had over the Chief Justice of England. The gentlemen to whom the hon. Member had referred were unpaid county magistrates, and were under the supervision of the Lord Chancellor, who, if he was worthy of his Office, would resent any interference from the Government in the discharge of his own duty. The law did not authorize that interference. The matter might be brought under the no- tice of the Lord Chancellor for his consideration; but if the Chief Secretary, or even the Lord Lieutenant, were to require him to supersede a particular magistrate, the Lord Chancellor would decline to act merely on such dictation. The Chief Secretary had brought the case under the notice of the Lord Chancellor, who had inquired into the case, and he, therefore, knew more about it than anyone else, and he had formed his opinion that Mr. Herbert's language deserved reprobation, but did not require that he should be superseded. No doubt, this instance showed that a magistrate might sometimes forget himself; but if he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had to exercise authority in the matter, and found that a magistrate, who ordinarily discharged his functions in a fair and just manner, had upon a particular occasion used reprehensible language, he did not think he should take the extreme course of superseding him. With respect to Mr. Nottar, he found that he lived in a remote part of the country, and had, on the whole, discharged his duty justly and well. Now, as to the case of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, whose conduct on a particular occasion had been complained of as illegal. On a former occasion he had pointed out, and he would now repeat what he had then said, that the plain course open to anyone who complained that a magistrate had acted illegally, in dispersing a meeting or otherwise, was not to run with a kind of tittle-tattle to the Lord Chancellor, or even to the House of Commons, of which the person assailed was not a Member, but to appeal to the law, which was open to everyone, and was a course which the Irish people understood very well. Anyone who supposed he had his grievance could try it inexpensively by an action at Quarter Sessions, or by a more expensive process in one of the Superior Courts. There was also a third course open—namely, by application to the Court of Queen's Bench. Let them adopt any of those courses to determine whether their complaint was well or ill founded, and not appeal to a tribunal where the facts could not be investigated, or the issue—if there was one—decided. The hon. Member for Wexford had referred to yet another case, in which a defendant, on leaving the Court, was advised by the magistrate to thank the police. Well, this again might be sus- ceptible of a very simple explanation: it was, possibly, no worse than a foolish joke. The hon. Member should bear in mind that the words said to be used by the magistrate were not uttered till the case had been decided. It was still customary, he was glad to say, with a courtesy which had not yet faded away from Ireland, for a man on leaving Court, and at other times, to utter some such words of ordinary courtesy, and not by any means of servility, as "Thank you, your Honour," or the like; and he supposed that words of this kind were used on the occasion under notice, and that the magistrate, in reply, said—"Why, you should not thank me, but the police." He had heard of a corporal's guard being turned out by a general to make a field day when there was no regiment to review; but he had never known so much fuss to be made about so small a matter as this. The subject, in fact, was so trivial that even the Fourth Party, in all the plenitude of its power, would have thought twice before taking such action as had been taken by the hon. Member opposite. As to Mr. Blake, he was unaware of the nature of the publication stated to have been issued by that gentleman; but over such a matter it was surely not worth their while to waste further time. In conclusion, he would say that, so far as he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) was concerned, any substantial complaint against any person intrusted with the administration of justice would command his serious attention at all times.

wished to say with what regret he had heard the frequent attacks which had been made upon the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He differed as much as anyone from the Irish policy of the Government; but he wished to take an opportunity of saying that if ever there was a man on the Treasury Bench who was animated with a single desire to do his duty to his Sovereign and his country, that man was his right hon. Friend who now filled the Office of Chief Secretary for Ireland. He had the advantage of sitting in the House when his right hon. Friend passed two great measures under very great difficulties—the Ballot Act and the Education Act; and the statesman whose name was identified with such legislative Acts ought to receive more consideration from the House and the country than had been shown to the right hon. Gentleman.

said, he recognized the kindly disposition of the hon. Member for the City of London. The remarks of the hon. Member reminded him of the old Irish air, "Should Auld Acquaintance be Forgot." [An hon. MEMBER: Scotch.] Well, it was thoroughly Irish in sentiment. The hon. Gentleman had evidently not forgotten old times, when he had taken part with the Chief Secretary for Ireland in what he believed was called the "feast of love." The speech of the Solicitor General for Ireland he considered a most extraordinary one. On a certain historical occasion the tanner said—"There is nothing like leather;" and the hon. and learned Gentleman, thinking of the Irish Bar, who, happily, were not very busy now, said there was nothing like law; and he enunciated the doctrine that whenever ground of complaint arose against a magistrate in Ireland, the proper course was, not to have recourse to the Lord Chancellor, or to an appeal to that House, but to go to law about it. That was a pretty piece of advice to give to humble persons. It was calling on them to take their revenge, not from behind a hedge, but in a more expensive way. With regard to Mr. Clifford Lloyd's case, he could not, therefore, agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman when he said that the proper course would have been to cite Mr. Lloyd before the Courts for dispersing a meeting illegally and saying—"If you collect together again I will fire." How could the people of Drogheda take out a writ against this magistrate for threatening to shoot them down if they did not disperse?

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intends to misrepresent me. I suppose not. I said that if the magistrate acted illegally in dispersing the meeting any person aggrieved had an ample remedy, and this remedy I pointed out.

thought the hon. and learned Gentleman treated these people as though they had no bonâ fide case. It was his opinion that the conduct of the magistrate did not constitute a cause of action. It was not the Lord Chancellor who was responsible for the maintenance of Mr. Clifford Lloyd; it was the Irish Executive. They had heard the evi- dence of most reliable witnesses that the retention of Mr. Clifford Lloyd was detrimental to the interests of the public peace; but they encouraged him in his acts, and sent him to another district. Mr. Lloyd, on the occasion referred to, behaved, as had been well said, like a firebrand. The way in which the Government treated complaints of this kind was calculated to lower respect for the administration of the law; and he trusted that the next time the Chief Secretary for Ireland had to make remarks with reference to the conduct of a man like Mr. Lloyd, the right hon. Gentleman would adopt a different tone, and would understand that it was not a matter to be met across the floor of the House by such remarks as the right hon. Gentleman had then made.

said, before the Appropriation Bill was read a second time, he desired to learn from the Government what course they proposed to take next Session with reference to the Irish Borough and County Franchise and Local Government Bills? The first of these measures was not proceeded with, and the second, although announced at the commencement of this Session in the Speech from the Throne, had not been dealt with. Those were subjects on which the supporters of the Government had made promises to the Irish electors. He also wished to know whether the persons now detained in prison under the Coercion Act in Ireland would have an opportunity of preferring claims to compensation in the Land Courts?

replied, that he could not give any distinct pledge with reference to those Bills; but the Government were, and had been, anxious to bring them to a successful issue. Last year the Compensation for Disturbance Bill had crowded out the Franchise Bill, and this year the hon. Member was aware that the Land Act had prevented almost any other legislation being passed. Legislation for England and Scotland was quite as much in arrear. With regard to the other question, he felt perfectly confident that every opportunity would be given to persons in prison to defend, in the Land Court, any interests they might have in land.

said, he wished to call attention to the character of this Bill and the mode of its introduction. If it were a Government Bill, it was not introduced by the right Department; it should have come from the Local Government Board; but, instead of that, it was brought on by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Evelyn Ashley), who represented the Board of Trade; and the Bill was an ingenious attempt to confer an exceptional benefit on the Isle of Wight by exempting it from the operation of a clause in a former Act, although the Isle of Wight had not disturnpiked its roads, which was the condition precedent to gaining the benefit of that clause. He did not scruple to say that he never knew of a measure of that character being attempted to be passed at that period of the Session; and he felt it to be his duty, in the interests of justice, to oppose it. He should, therefore, move that the House resolve itself into Committee on that Bill upon that day three months.

said, he trusted that he could show that the hon. and learned Member, however much he might have desired to be fair in reference to this Bill, had been very much the reverse. The Isle of Wight had its own Highway Commissioners, and had had them ever since 1813. In 1878 an Act of Parliament was passed relating to highways, by which, through an oversight, certain burdens were imposed upon the Isle of Wight, although that place was expressly excluded from par- ticipating in the benefits which the measure conferred upon the other parts of the Kingdom. In these circumstances, the present measure had been brought in for the purpose of relieving the Island from those burdens.

objected to the Motion, and pointed out that the last stage of a Bill could only be taken, in the circumstances, with the consent of the House.

supported the objection, and asked the Speaker whether the third reading of a Bill could be taken without Notice when any hon. Member objected to that course being pursued?

There is no rule in the case. On the contrary, at this period of the Session the additional stage of a Bill is very frequently taken.

, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he should not detain the House very long in asking Parliament to read this Bill a second time. In 1840 a very beneficial Act was passed for the relief of conscientious persons, among whom were the members of the Society of Friends, one of whom might, for a few shillings of church rates, after having been served with all the necessary orders in the cause, fall under the penalties of the law. A member of that Society having so acted, the result was he was put in prison, where he remained some time the subject of much sympathy and commiseration for his conscientious action. Accordingly, the Minister of the day—Lord John Russell—brought in a Bill which became, after the name of the sufferer, Thorogood's Act, of which the main feature was that when a person had been sent to gaol, it should be lawful for the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's most honourable Privy Council, or the Judge of the Ecclesiastical Court, to let the man out on this condition—that the party proceeding against such man should have consented to it, provided always that no such order should be made by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council or the Judge without the consent of the other party or parties, with this further proviso, that he should not have this remedy applied to this case till he had smarted for his conscientious procedure, and had been kept in prison for six months.